12 HMA 36-18 HC 263/18 supreme law of Zimbabwe [s 2]. Any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. [31) On the grounds above, I dismissed all the first respondent's points in limine and directed argument on the merits. In sunnnary, the mainstay of the first respondent's argument on the merits was: • The events complained of, even if true, were 'a thing of the past'. The first respondent and Zimbabwe are now in a new dispensation under President Mnangagwa. The violations were probably rife under the then President Mugabe. Not anymore. • The report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Cornmission was one-sided. It contained none of the first respondent's views. As such it lacked balance. • The applicants had conflated the functions of the first respondent with those of the second respondent. It is not the policy of the first respondent to require children and teachers to attend its rallies. The first respondent has a large support base and it does not need school children and teachers to bolster numbers. But for the second respondent, the new schools cunicula require the preservation of traditional culture. This is done tln·ough the compulsory teaching of visual performing arts and mass displays, components of which involve children showcasing traditional dances like "jerusarema", "mbende", "muchongoyo", and the like, at mass gatherings such as rallies. • Some parents sometimes take their children to the first respondent's rallies out of necessity if there is no one at home to leave them with. • The event at Chinzanga School in Mashonaland East Province on 9 July 2018 was not a rally but an occasion for the President to donate computers and therefore one which the school children had to attend. • There was no evidence placed before the court by the applicants to show that the first respondent had not paid for the buses and lonies used in ferrying communities to its political gatherings or that the equipment; furniture and other property used at such gatherings had not been donated willingly by the owners or the school/parents associations. [32] In his submissions, Mr Mushangwe stressed that the first respondent was not at all involved in the perverse conduct complained of, that if it was the second respondent doing it, then it was unfair to include the first respondent in the interdict.