Staff Reporter
Harare-A parent has filed a High Court application challenging the Government’s policy of restricting Ordinary Level candidates to a maximum of nine examination subjects, arguing that the rule infringes on learners’ constitutional right to education.
Walter Mutowo is seeking an order compelling the Zimbabwe School Examinations Council (ZIMSEC), the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education and Mutare Boys High School to allow his son, Anesu Mutowo, to sit for 12 O-Level subjects this year.
According to court documents, Anesu, a Form Four student at Mutare Boys High School, had already registered and paid examination fees for 12 subjects in March before school authorities informed him that he would have to reduce the number to nine in line with provisions of the Heritage-Based Curriculum Framework.
Mutowo argues that the decision was unlawful and unfair, saying neither the Education Act nor the ZIMSEC Act gives authorities the power to impose a ceiling on the number of subjects a learner may sit.
In his court papers, Mutowo contends that the restriction disadvantages academically gifted pupils and limits their ability to maximise educational opportunities.
“The State is effectively legislating a ceiling on intellectual excellence,” Mutowo argues in his affidavit.
He further maintains that his son had a legitimate expectation to write all 12 subjects after completing registration and paying the required examination fees.
The legal challenge targets Clause 3.3 of the Heritage-Based Curriculum Framework, which provides for three compulsory core learning areas and up to six elective subjects at lower secondary level, effectively capping candidates at nine subjects.
Mutowo is seeking a declaration that the policy is invalid and an order directing ZIMSEC and Mutare Boys High School to permit his son to register, prepare for and sit all 12 subjects originally selected.
The case comes amid growing debate over the government’s decision to limit O-Level candidates to nine subjects and A-Level students to three subjects.
Education authorities have defended the policy, saying it is intended to reduce pressure on learners, improve the quality of education and encourage depth of learning rather than the accumulation of large numbers of examination subjects.
Officials have also cited logistical challenges associated with accommodating candidates taking unusually high numbers of subjects, including timetable clashes and increased examination administration costs.
However, critics argue that restricting subject choices could limit opportunities for high-achieving students and reduce their competitiveness when applying for university programmes and scholarships.
The outcome of the case will be closely watched by parents, schools and education stakeholders, as it could determine whether authorities have the legal authority to enforce subject limits under the Heritage-Based Curriculum.
At the time of filing, ZIMSEC and the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education had not yet responded to the application.
