The facts giving rise to the Musukwa case emanate from the revolving debate on whether deaf people should be allowed to drive in the same way that able-bodied individuals have the liberty to. The Petitioners (all deaf) approached the Court seeking a ruling to the effect that S.62 of the Road Traffic Act, No. 11 of 2002 violate Articles 11(b), 22(1)(a) & 23(2) of the Constitution of Zambia. The Petitioners contended that the Respondent’s refusal to grant the 2nd Petitioner a driver’s license, and its decision to revoke the 3rd Petitioner’s license was a violation of their freedom of movement as well as the freedom from discrimination. The Petitioners also alleged that this violation consequently prevented them from making a living for themselves.
Additionally, the Petitioners contended that the position regarding drivers’ licenses in Zambia is an anomaly. This is because deaf drivers can be issued with valid licences by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to drive anywhere in the region while a Zambian national who is deaf cannot be issued a licence to drive within Zambia. This essentially entails that a deaf Zambian citizen may be issued with a SADC license and can drive in any other area in the region but Zambia.
"Frankson Musukwa (Suing on his own behalf and as Executive Director of Zambia Deaf Youth and Women) & Others v. Road Transport and Safety Agency,"
SAIPAR Case Review: Vol. 4:
2, Article 12.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/scr/vol4/iss2/12