TWO elderly women have approached the High Court seeking a landmark ruling compelling the government to relocate the Legal Aid Directorate offices to premises accessible to persons with disabilities, the elderly and other vulnerable citizens.
The case, which is set to be heard on July 2 before High Court judge Justice Nyaradzo Munangati-Manongwa, is being described as a major constitutional challenge centred on access to justice, equality and human dignity.
The applicants, Lillian Chinyerere and Lorraine Mavhunda, are being represented by prominent human rights lawyer Harrison Nkomo of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR).
The women filed the application on August 7 last year after what they described as a humiliating and distressing experience when they visited the Legal Aid Directorate’s offices at Century House in Harare.
According to court papers, Chinyerere and Mavhunda had previously accessed legal assistance from the directorate’s former offices located at the corner of Simon Muzenda Street and Samora Machel Avenue, where services were offered on the ground floor and were easily accessible to the public.
However, after the department relocated to the sixth floor of Century House, the two women allegedly discovered that the building’s elevators were not functional.
Keep Reading
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
The only available option to reach the offices was by climbing several flights of stairs.
The women argued that due to age-related mobility challenges, fatigue, balance problems and visual impairment, they were physically unable to climb the stairs to access legal services.
When they reportedly asked officials why the elevators were not operational, they were informed that the building had been condemned and that operating elevators could endanger the structure.
Unable to access the offices, Chinyerere and Mavhunda said they were forced to discuss sensitive legal matters with officials in open public spaces outside the offices, compromising their privacy and dignity.
They contend that the experience left them distressed and their legal matters unresolved.
In their application, the duo argued that the inaccessible premises effectively discriminate against elderly persons, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
They maintain that the arrangement violates constitutional rights including equality before the law, dignity, privacy, access to information, fair administrative justice and access to justice.
“The lack of confidentiality prevents them from sharing personal and legal information freely, further impeding their access to justice,” the application states.
The women also argued that the barriers they encountered discouraged them from seeking legal assistance and deepened their sense of isolation and vulnerability.
They are asking the High Court to declare that the continued operation of the Legal Aid Directorate from inaccessible premises is unconstitutional, unlawful and discriminatory.
Specifically, they want the court to order the Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs ministry to relocate the Legal Aid Directorate to accessible premises within 60 days of the granting of the order.
They also want government authorities to submit a written compliance plan within 30 days outlining how the relocation process will be implemented.
The respondents in the matter are the Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister, the Attorney-General and the Legal Aid Directorate.
In opposing the application, the Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs minister acknowledged the accessibility challenges at the directorate’s offices, but argued against an immediate relocation.
According to court filings, the minister said government was seized with the issue and pursuing a “permanent, accessible and sustainable solution”.
He further argued that relocating a major government department would be financially costly and operationally disruptive.
“A full-scale relocation of a critical government department is an extremely costly and logistically disruptive undertaking,” the Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs ministry argued in his response.
Nonetheless, the applicants insist that constitutional rights cannot be postponed because of administrative inconvenience or financial considerations.
The case is expected to test Zimbabwe’s constitutional obligations regarding accessibility of public institutions and could establish an important legal precedent on the rights of elderly persons and people living with disabilities.
For ZLHR, the matter represents a broader struggle to ensure equal access to justice for all citizens regardless of age or physical condition.