86 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal
administrative whilst use of an official language attracts legal, political and administrative remedies.
Fourth, with the promotion of the use of an official language individuals cannot generally claim a
breach before a court of law since they have no right to use an official language. Use of an official
language empowers individuals to claim a breach of a right to use an official language before a
court of law.109
Finally, with promotion of the use of an official language, the extent of obligations sufficient to
promote the use of an official language is left to the discretion at the political level, as in Language
Schemes approved by a Minister or a parliamentary-approved Commissioner. Conversely, with
use of an official language, the extent of obligations involved in the use of an official language is
largely determined by legislation and regulations. It is therefore clear that the promotion of use of
language is weaker than the use of an official language in terms of the protection afforded to the
language and its speakers.
Turning to s 6(4) of the Constitution, it is noteworthy that the obligation to promote the use of all
languages is mandatory as shown by the use of the word ‘must’ and the obligation lies with the
state – executive, legislature and judiciary. Two deficiencies are glaring in s 6(4). First, there is
no clarity regarding the nature of measures that the state should take to promote the use of all
languages. These measures could include affirmative action. Second, s 6(4) does not specify the
nature of conditions that the state should create for the development of all languages.
4. Lacuna in s 6 of the Constitution
One of the major weaknesses of s 6 of the Constitution is that there is no implementation mechanism
in place for the fulfilment of the language rights protected in that section. This makes it very difficult
for the language rights norms provided for in the Constitution to be effectively implemented.
109
See for example English Medium Students Parents v. State of Karnataka, 1994 AIR 1702, 1994 SCC (1) 550, State
of Kerala v. Mother Provisional, 1970 AIR SCC 2079, and more generally L.M. Wakhare v. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1959 MP 208.
Select target paragraph3
Add to table of contents