THE High Court has ruled that husbands of police officers should receive medical and dental services as dependants after ruling that a 1968 discriminatory law on the services was unconstitutional.
Harare lawyer Kenias Shonhai on Friday last week successfully led a legal campaign to declare section 2 of the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations 1968 unconstitutional.
Shonhai, who is the managing and founding partner at Shonhai Law Chambers and is married to a police officer, sued the Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage minister, Police Commissioner-General and chairperson of the Police Service Commission in relation to that law.
“This is an application for an order declaring the omission from section 2 of the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations 1968 in the definition of the word ‘dependant’ of the word ‘husband’ after the word ‘wife’ to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Zimbabwe and consequential relief,” Shonhai said in his court application.
“I approach this court as a person affected by the above omission acting in my own interests under section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
Shonhai said he was compelled to approach the court after he and his children were denied access to treatment as dependants of a female police officer at Dombotombo Camp Clinic despite being married under the Marriages Act (Chapter 5:11).
Keep Reading
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
“I inquired about the reason and I was told that, in terms of the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations, I together with my children, we are not considered as dependants.
“I assumed the nurse at the clinic was only following the dictates of the law and we ended up looking for alternative medical services,” he said.
Shonhai further argued that from 1968 to June 16 this year, female police officers had been treated as second-class citizens when it came to police medical and dental services.
He said spouses of male police officers had the right to benefit from the medical and dental services, but the converse was not true when it came to spouses of female police officers.
The High Court then declared the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations, 1968 unconstitutional in as far as they differentiate female police officers from male police officers when it comes to medical and dental benefits.
The court found the regulations in violation of sections 56 and 80 of the Constitution, and as a result, all husbands of police officers will receive medical and dental services as dependants of their wives.
“Pending a decision of the Constitutional Court on the validity of the impugned section of the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations, 1968, the applicant and all husbands of members of the police service shall receive the benefits due to a dependent in terms of the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations, 1968,” ruled the court.
“It is ordered that the first and third respondents shall, within 90 days of confirmation of this order of invalidity by the Constitutional Court, amend the Police (Medical and Dental) Regulations, 1968 to insert in section 2 of the same the word ‘husband’ after the word ‘wife’ in the definition of a ‘dependant’ under the regulations.”
The High Court ordered the first, second and third respondents to pay the costs of the suit, jointly and severally the one paying for the other to be absolved.
Shonhai was being represented by advocate Tererai Mafukidze, advocate Sylvester Hashiti and Zivanai Makwanya of Makwanya Legal Practice with support from the Catholic Lawyers’ Guild.