Sex workers sue Chombo

SEX workers in Bulawayo have sued Home Affairs minister Ignatius Chombo for allegedly blocking their proposed protest march against discrimination and violence.

This follows a directive by the police officer commanding Bulawayo central district, Chief Superintendent Fungai Dengu, who barred members of the Sexual Rights Centre (SRC) from holding a protest march in the city, claiming the procession was illegal.

Irked by the decision, SRC filed a High Court application, challenging the police's action, citing Chombo, Police Commissioner-General Augustine Chihuri and Dengu as respondents.

In the application, SRC director, Humphrey Melusi Ndondo argued sex workers had a constitutional right to demonstrate and petition, as enshrined in sections 58 and 59 of the Constitution.

"She (Dengu) has provided no law to substantiate this decision (to ban the protest) nor has she followed the procedure as set out in the Public Order and Security Act (Posa). In fact, we are not aware of any specific provisions in Zimbabwe, which explicitly provide that the act of exchanging sex for reward is illegal," Ndondo said in his founding affidavit.

"We submit, with respect, that the first respondent's decision to refuse our demonstration is based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the law of Zimbabwe and is, therefore, unlawful and irrational."

Ndondo, who is represented by Matshobana Ncube, said they initially wanted to hold the march on December 17 last year, but their application was turned down on the grounds that prostitution is illegal.

Subsequent applications were also turned down on similar grounds, prompting the SRC to take the legal route.

"We submit that participating in a march that advocates for the rights and protection of sex workers against abuse and violence is not a crime nor unlawful. In any event, the first respondent's refusal of our march is not based on the possibility that the procession would be cause of damage, violence or cause public disturbances, which are the criteria upon which a demonstration may be prohibited in terms of the Act.

"The first respondent failed to apply her mind to the requirement and procedure set out in Posa and her failure to do so unreasonably violates our constitutional rights to assemble, demonstrate and petition," Ndondo said.