Copac clause limits right to education

Columnists
The importance of education and the need for it to be guaranteed by a nation’s supreme law cannot be overstated. Many countries in Africa and elsewhere have enshrined the right to education in their constitutions. Taking a step in the right direction, the Copac final draft attempted but failed to fully guarantee the right to […]

The importance of education and the need for it to be guaranteed by a nation’s supreme law cannot be overstated. Many countries in Africa and elsewhere have enshrined the right to education in their constitutions. Taking a step in the right direction, the Copac final draft attempted but failed to fully guarantee the right to education in the Bill of Rights. The draft begins by making a commitment to education in the National Objectives section, but as this is not enough to guarantee the right to education, it goes on to state in the Bill of Rights that “every citizen and permanent resident of Zimbabwe has a right to (a) a basic state funded education, including adult basic education, and (b) further education, which the state through reasonable legislation and other measures, must make progressively available and accessible.” (4.32(1))

  Had the draft ended there, it would have been good, but it proceeds to put a clause within the above-mentioned section which maintains that the state is only to provide for the right to education “within its available resources”.

  It is clear that by putting this clause, the state seeks to provide itself with a backdoor through which to escape when questioned on its inability to fully guarantee the right to education.

  This clause is an unacceptable limitation of the above-mentioned right and should be removed; it only serves to provide the state with an easy way to abdicate its responsibility.

  Some may argue that ours is a developing country with limited financial resources —but we have an abundance of natural resources. It is saddening to note that the draft only makes use of the clause to limit rights to education and health but does not do so on the right of war veterans to claim gratuities.

  Judging from the history of government extravagance, one can be forgiven for thinking that the motive behind this clause is to leave more money for government officials to acquire expensive vehicles and make costly foreign trips on a regular basis.

Zechariah Mushawatu