In this application, the applicants seek an order declaring that the Parliament of Zimbabwe (“Parliament”) and the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe (“the President of Zimbabwe” or simply 'the President') have failed to fulfil certain constitutional obligations delineated in section 328 of the Zimbabwe Constitution in passing Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.2) Act 2021 (“the Constitution Amendment Act”).
More specifically, the applicants allege that the Bill that was eventually passed by Parliament, on 7 May 2021, contained a number of major and material amendments to the original Bill.
Maintaining that the Bill that is passed by Parliament must be the same Bill as that originally gazetted, they seek, as consequential relief, an order setting aside the entire Constitution Amendment Act; alternatively, an order striking down the particular sections of the Constitution Amendment Act which they consider to have been irregularly enacted.
Various objections were taken in limine by the respondents, both in their opposing papers and heads of argument. The applicants also raised a number of preliminary points arising from the opposing papers filed by the respondents.
The court, of its own motion, invited Ms Sanhanga to appear as amicus curiae, and, consequent to that invitation, she filed heads of argument dealing with the various contentions raised by the parties.
Having considered the facts of this matter in their totality and the submissions by the parties, as well as amicus curiae, I reach the conclusion, that, the Constitution Amendment Act was properly passed.
The application must therefore fail....,.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The first applicant, Edwin Mushoriwa (“Mushoriwa”) is a Member of Parliament for the Dzivarasekwa Constituency in Harare, having been so elected in the 2018 harmonised elections.
The second applicant, Firinne Trust operating as Veritas (“Firinne Trust”), is a trust constituted in accordance with the laws of this country. It is a human rights organisation involved in the advocacy of human rights and constitutionalism in Zimbabwe. It further states that part of its mandate is to publicise the work of Parliament and analyse Bills and legislation to ensure adherence to constitutional principles and respect for human rights.
The third applicant, Brian Crozier (“Crozier”), is a registered legal practitioner, who, for many years, worked as the Chief Legal Draughtsman in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. With others, he was involved in the drafting of the 2013 Constitution. He states that he has devoted much of his life in defending the rule of law and human rights.
The first respondent, the Parliament of Zimbabwe (“Parliament”) is the organ of State that is charged with the responsibility of initiating, preparing, considering, and rejecting legislation. Its legislative authority is exercised through the enactment of Acts of Parliament. The Legislature of Zimbabwe consists of Parliament which passes Bills and the second respondent, the President of Zimbabwe, who assents to and signs Bills presented to him by Parliament to enable Bills to become Acts of Parliament.
The Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.2) Bill (“the Constitution Amendment Bill”) was gazetted as Bill HB23/2019 on 31 December 2019 through General Notice 216/2019. It was eventually passed by Parliament on 7 May 2021.
It is common cause, that, during its second reading, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, in response to points made during the debate, gave notice that he would be moving amendments to the Bill at the Committee Stage scheduled for the following day. The suggested amendments were published in the order paper for the following day. In addition to the amendments proposed by the Minister, other amendments were proposed from the floor.
These amendments were accepted and adopted during the Committee Stage.
It is these amendments and their constitutionality that the applicants take issue with.
APPLICANTS CASE BEFORE THIS COURT
In his founding affidavit, Edwin Mushoriwa states that the Bill that was eventually passed by Parliament, on 7 May 2021, contained major and material amendments that were incorporated into the original Bill.
He states, that, it is unlawful for Parliament to pass a Constitutional Bill which is not, in express terms, the same as that which was originally gazetted in terms of section 328(3) of the Constitution. In other words, so he averred, the Bill that is passed by Parliament must be the same Bill as that originally gazetted.
Because the Bill that was eventually passed contained major amendments, it became materially different from the original Bill and was, consequently, invalid.
He avers that where, as in this case, there are major and material amendments to a Constitutional Bill that has been gazetted in terms of section 328(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, then, such amendments should be gazetted for a further period of ninety (90) days in terms of the same section and subjected to further debate by members of the public in public meetings and through written submissions as provided for in subsection (4) of section 328 of the Constitution.
In failing to ensure that section 328 of the Constitution was complied with, both Parliament and the President failed to fulfil the constitutional obligation to pass a Bill that complied with section 328 of the Constitution.
The Bill was passed by both the National Assembly and the Senate in May 2021 and was signed and gazetted into law by the President on 7 May 2021 as Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.2), Act No.2 of 2021.
The applicants itemise the amendments they say were material that were introduced at the Committee Stage of Parliament as being the following:
(a) The proviso that was added to section 124 of the Constitution relating to a proposal by Priscilla Mushonga, for political parties to ensure that ten of the sixty women members would be persons under the age of thirty five; that women with disabilities are represented on party lists, and young women with disabilities are represented on their party lists in terms of an Act of Parliament.
(b) The amendment to section 180 of the Constitution which now made provision that an appointment of a Judge could be made by the President whenever it becomes necessary to do so rather than whenever a vacancy arose.
(c) The amendment to section 186 of the Constitution increasing the retirement age of Judges from 70 to 75 years subject to an election by the Judge to continue and approval by the President. It further provided, that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 328(7) of the Constitution, the amendment would apply to the continuation in office of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, Judges of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court.
(d) The amendment to section 199 providing that 10% of persons to be employed in the public service would be persons with disabilities.
(e) The amendment to section 268 providing that members of a provincial council should include ten women elected by a system of proportional representation.
(f) The amendment to section 327 excluding from Parliamentary scrutiny loans and agreements referred to in section 300(3) and (4) of the Constitution.
PARLIAMENT'S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
The notice of opposition was deposed to by the Speaker of Parliament, Jacob Mudenda.
In his opposing affidavit, he disputed that Parliament was required to re-gazette the amendments that were incorporated into the original Bill or that there was an obligation, on the part of Parliament, to invite members of the public, once again, to express their views in respect of the same.
He stated that there is no provision in the Constitution which requires amendments to be re-gazetted or subjected to further public meetings and consultation. It was his further contention, that, had the intention been that a gazetted Bill should be passed without amendments, the section in question would have stated accordingly.
In any event, so he argued, there would be no purpose in having parliamentary debates if Parliament is not allowed, at the end of the day, to make amendments where it deems fit. Such an interpretation of section 328 of the Constitution would lead to an absurdity.
He further averred, that, Parliament did, in fact, comply with the provisions of section 328(3) of the Constitution.
The Speaker duly gazetted the Bill as required by section 328(3) of the Constitution. Thereafter, pursuant to subsection (4), Parliament duly invited members of the public to express their views on the Bill, both in public meetings and through written submissions. He further stated, that, the amendments came about as a result of parliamentary debate and that the amendments did not, in any event, change the complexion of the Bill.
Endorsing the Bill with obvious shortcomings would have constituted a failure on the part of Parliament to perform its constitutional obligation.
He further stated, that, since there is no provision which prohibits Parliament from making amendments to a Constitutional Bill, the matter does not therefore fall within the ambit of section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT'S NOTICE OF OPPOSITION
The opposing affidavit of the President was deposed to by the Attorney-General who has averred that he has been authorised by the President to depose to the affidavit.
The Attorney-General has taken a number of preliminary points:
(i) First, that the application is fatally defective, having been brought in terms of section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution, which is a non-existent provision.
(ii) Second, that not having alleged a contravention of their fundamental rights espoused in Chapter 4 of the Constitution, the applicants have no legal standing to challenge the validity of the Constitution Amendment Act.
(iii) Third, that the same matter is pending before this court in the application filed by the second applicant jointly with Eric Matinenga and Ors in CCZ14/21. The matter is therefore already pending before this court and the present application ought therefore to be dismissed with costs.
(iv) Fourth, that Brian Carston Brown has no authority to bring these proceedings on behalf of Firinne Trust.
The resolution attached to the founding affidavit gives general authority to the director of the Trust, one Dr Ingram Thorpe, to institute court proceedings, which she did in case number CCZ14/21. Brian Carston Brown was given alternative authority to depose to an affidavit only in situations where Dr Thorpe would have failed to do so.
(v) Fifth, that Firinne Trust, being a trust, has not established that it has been given legal capacity, in terms of its constitution, to institute proceedings in its own name as opposed to the names of its trustees. The assertion that it has power to sue and be sued remains a bald one.
On the merits, the Attorney-General states that he does not accept that there were material differences between the Bill that was gazetted and the Bill that was eventually passed.
Further that, in any event, there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents Parliament from effecting amendments to a Bill that is passed as a law.
He also submits that no attempt has been made to identify the specific constitutional obligation that is alleged to have been breached by Parliament or the President.
He has further stated, that, the Bill in question was subjected to all the necessary requirements in terms of section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
There is no constitutional requirement for any amendments effected to a Bill to be gazetted for the second time.
The averments made by the applicants, in their founding affidavits, show that there was publication of the Bill and interested persons were given the opportunity to make contributions in respect of the contents of the Bill.
He argues, that, the applicants are therefore introducing an additional constitutional requirement where none exists.
He states, that, taken to its logical conclusion, the proposition by the applicants is that amendments that are proposed after gazetting must themselves constitute a separate Constitutional Bill and become subject to further gazetting and the ninety-day notice in the Gazette.
On the amendments introduced during the Committee Stage, he submits that there is nothing in the Constitution that precludes Parliament from incorporating into the Bill suggestions made by members of Parliament during the Committee Stage. The intention of having debates in Parliament is to ensure that the Bills are fine-tuned, adjusted, and amended to suit the needs of society.
APPLICANTS ANSWERING AFFIDAVITS
In their answering affidavits, the applicants state that the President has duties that are defined in Part 2 of Chapter 5 of the Constitution. Section 90(1) of the Constitution makes it clear that he must uphold, defend, obey, and respect the Constitution. To the contrary, they allege that he and Parliament are responsible for its mutilation.
The applicants also take issue with the affidavit deposed to by the Speaker on behalf of Parliament.
Accepting that the Speaker is the head of Parliament, they state, however, that he is not Parliament, which consists of two chambers. The two houses should have separately resolved to defend this matter and given him specific authority to defend this application.
They further argue, that, the effect of introducing material amendments at the Committee Stage of Parliament is to deny the imperator prescribed in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 328 of the Constitution.
A holistic and contextual construction of section 328 of the Constitution is imperative. It must be one that seeks to protect the Constitution and not destroy it.
The applicants accept that Parliament has the right to debate a Bill and to reject some of its provisions. But, they do not accept that Parliament, at the instance of the executive, or anyone else, can introduce material amendments that were not part of the original Bill when gazetted.
Where there is a counter-proposal in the ensuing debate in Parliament, the executive must go back to the drawing board and re-gazette a fresh amendment arising out of those consultations.
In other words, the Bill presented and gazetted in terms of section 328(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution cannot have amendments that by-pass the obligation for public participation as well as the obligation for the Speaker to give at least ninety days notice of such Bill in the Gazette specifying the precise terms of the Bill.
The applicants also take the point, that, it is not competent for the Attorney-General to depose to an affidavit on behalf of the President who is his client.
On the point taken by the President, that, the applicants cannot approach this court in terms of section 16 (2)(d) of the Constitution, the applicants say that this is an “ipse dixit…, raised by hired guns, acting on behalf of the 2nd respondent, who has no morality, no conscience, no decency other than their bottom line.”
They further state, that, the objection is “nothing but sophistry pedantism and typical of those who do not respect the Constitution and who do not respect the rule of law in this country.”
On the suggestion that the present application was the result of cutting and pasting of the Eric Matinenga and Ors CCZ14/21 application, the applicants deny that the respective causes of action are similar, regard being had to the fact, that, in Eric Matinenga and Ors CCZ14/21, the application is based on the doctrine of basic structures, which is not the position in the present matter. They submit that conflating the two applications would have been undesirable.
The applicants state further, that, the Firinne Trust has the legal capacity to sue and be sued.
They aver however that even if it does not have such capacity, the first and third applicants, who are natural persons, are before the court.
They state that there is no point “raising an objection that does not advance any cause other than irritation.”
Brian Carston Brown avers, that, the Deed of Trust of the second applicant authorises the Trust to bring and defend proceedings. He does not, however, attach a copy of the Trust Deed.
The applicants further stress, that, no material amendments can be passed at the Committee Stage of Parliament and neither can amendments which would not have been subjected to a process of participatory democracy in terms of section 328 of the Constitution.
They argue that if this were to be allowed, it would mean the Executive would ambush the public by introducing major material and far-reaching amendments on an unsuspecting public.
APPLICANTS HEADS OF ARGUMENT
In their heads of argument, the applicants submit that both Parliament and the President failed to fulfil their constitutional obligations in respect of the passage of the Constitution Amendment Act, and, more specifically, in enacting “ungazetted and unconsulted amendments.”
In summary, they submit that it is unconstitutional for Parliament to pass amendments that are not expressed in the terms originally gazetted in terms of section 328(3) of the Constitution, that have not been gazetted for ninety (90) days as required by section 328(3) and that have not been subjected to a process of public inquiry as mandated by section 328(4) of the Constitution.
They further submit that the Executive must justify its actions and show that it correctly fulfilled its constitutional obligations.
The applicants further argue that the Executive cannot, through the back door, allow such extensive amendments without them having been gazetted and debated.
They further submit, that, in interpreting section 328 of the Constitution, this court should not rely on the literal meaning of the words used but must read all the provisions of the Constitution holistically and in a generous and purposive manner.
If that approach is adopted, the conclusion would be reached that it was wrong and unconstitutional to introduce extensive amendments not previously gazetted or subjected to public scrutiny at the Committee Stage of Parliament.
They argue, that, nowhere in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is there provision for amendments to be made at the Committee Stage as stated in the Standing Orders. The procedure for amendments at the Committee Stage applies to normal Bills but not Constitutional Bills.
Section 328(4) of the Constitution implicitly excludes amendments that have neither been gazetted nor scrutinised by the public as there can never be amendments in respect of which members of the public are not invited to express their views on the proposed Bill.
On the remedy, the applicants submit that this is not a proper case for the court to employ a blue pencil test and excise the impugned provisions from the Constitution Amendment Act No.2. Instead, the Court should set aside the Act in its entirety.
At the hearing of the matter before this court, counsel for the applicants abandoned the preliminary point previously taken, that the Attorney-General cannot properly swear to an affidavit on behalf of the President.
Having abandoned that preliminary point, he nevertheless suggested that the judgment of this court should, obiter, express its views on the propriety of the Attorney General representing the President.
He further submitted, that, in the event that this court agrees with the applicants and holds that the amendment was unconstitutional, such decision should not have retrospective effect.
It was also his further submission, that, the Standing Orders of Parliament must be consistent with the Constitution which provides that all existing laws must be read in conformity with the Constitution.
Asked during the hearing in what way the President failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations, he told the court that the President has the obligation to scrutinise all Bills before assenting to them.
FIRST RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSIONS
In heads of argument filed on its behalf, Parliament took two preliminary points:
(i) The first was that the application ought to fail, the applicants having purported to approach this court in terms of section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution.
(ii) The second was that there has been a fatal non-joinder of both the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, who is the Minister assigned the administration of the Act and who has a direct and substantial interest in the matter.
On the merits, Parliament has submitted as follows:
It followed the required procedure in amending the Constitution. The Bill was gazetted before it was tabled in Parliament. The requisite ninety days period of notice of the precise terms of the Bill was given.
Section 117(2) of the Constitution confers on Parliament the legislative authority to amend the Constitution in accordance with section 328. Subsection (2) of section 328 provides that an Act of Parliament that amends the Constitution must do so in express terms.
The interpretation placed on section 328 of the Constitution, by the applicants, cannot be correct.
The section requires the Speaker to give notice in the Gazette of the precise terms of the Bill before presenting it in Parliament. In other words, the terms in the Gazette, from the time of gazetting and presentation in Parliament, cannot be changed. Thereafter, Parliament must invite members of the public to express their views on the Bill. Such invitation must be done before the Bill is presented in the house, and, once it is presented, it cannot be re-gazetted or referred back to the public.
The Bill must also be passed, at its last reading, by an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the membership of each house.
It was Parliament's further submission, that, regard being had to section 131(4) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, it has the power to amend a Bill that has been transmitted to either house of Parliament.
Paragraph 5(3) of the Fifth Schedule, in particular, provides that a Bill, which, having been transmitted to a house of Parliament, is passed by that house with amendments must be returned to the originating house with the amendments duly certified by the Clerk of Parliament and the house to which it is returned may reject, agree to or amend any of those amendments.
Subparagraph (3) also provides that where a Bill is returned to the originating house with amendments, and such amendments are rejected, or amended by the originating house, the other house may, by resolution, withdraw the amendments or agree to it being amended.
Bearing in mind the definition of “amend” in section 332 of the Constitution, it is clear that during debate, the houses may amend, vary, alter, modify, add to, delete or adapt the gazetted Bill.
It was Parliament's contention that the Constitution does not provide for any amendments effected to a gazetted Constitutional Bill to be re-gazetted or subjected to further public meetings and consultations. Had the intention been that the gazetted Bill should not be passed with amendments or that such amendments be further published and subjected to public scrutiny, then, Parliament would have said so.
Parliament further re-states, that, there would be little purpose in having debate in Parliament, from the first to the third reading, if Parliament were not to be allowed to make amendments where it deems fit.
In oral submissions, counsel for Parliament abandoned the preliminary point that the application was invalid, having been filed in terms of a non-existent section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution.
He, however, persisted with the preliminary point taken on the fatal non-joinder of the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Attorney-General.
Counsel for Parliament made the following further submissions:
The Constitution provides, in paragraph 12 of Part 4 of the Sixth Schedule, that the Standing Orders that were in force before the effective date continue in force until replaced or amended in terms of the Constitution.
Therefore, it is not permissible for the applicants to challenge conduct that is allowed by a law without challenging the law that allows it.
The Standing Orders provide for amendments at the Committee Stage. Therefore, it is impermissible to impugn a process which is part and parcel of the Constitution.
He further submitted, that, the Speaker, being the presiding officer of the activities of Parliament, can quite properly attest to an opposing affidavit on behalf of Parliament.
He also argued, that, the constitutional obligation on Parliament is to solicit the views of the public in public meetings and to give the public ninety (90) days notice of the precise terms of the Bill.
That requirement was complied with in this case.
The argument whether an amendment is major or material does not arise from any of the provisions of the Constitution. Whether an amendment is major cannot be determined by this court and would require the court to delve into the actual processes of Parliament in order to make such a determination.
The argument by the applicants that a Constitutional Bill cannot be amended, as happened in this case, fails to appreciate that members of Parliament are the representatives of the masses. They make the final decisions on what to bring up during debate.
He further submitted, that, they have no legal obligation to take up the views expressed by the public during public meetings and in written submissions.
It was quite proper for proposals to be made during the debate in plenary and for amendments to be made to the Bill consequent thereto. Section 328 of the Constitution does not state what Parliament must do with the views expressed by the public. The process was intended to inform members of Parliament of the views expressed by members of the public they represent in Parliament.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE
In heads of argument filed on his behalf, the President has submitted that section 328(3) of the Constitution does not impose any obligations on him as the President of Zimbabwe. It merely imposes obligations on the Speaker of Parliament to publish, on ninety days notice in the Gazette, the precise terms of a Constitutional Bill to be submitted to Parliament.
The Speaker's omission, if any, cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of this court under section 167(2)(d) of the Constitution. Subsection (4) imposes an obligation on Parliament to invite members of the public to express their views in public meetings and through written submissions.
The President has also raised two preliminary points:
(i) First, that in purporting to approach this court under section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution, which section bears no relationship to the relief sought, the application is invalid and must be dismissed on that basis alone.
(ii) Secondly, that the relief sought in the application in Eric Matinenga and Ors CCZ14/21 is identical to that sought in this matter. The matter is accordingly lis pendens.
On the merits he has submitted as follows:
Section 328(3) of the Constitution imposes a disability as opposed to an obligation in that it limits the right of Parliament to receive a Constitutional Bill to only those bills that would have been published by the Speaker in the manner set out in that provision.
Therefore, a breach of section 328(3) of the Constitution does not constitute a failure to fulfil a constitutional obligation as such an obligation must be a positive duty imposed by that section.
He has further submitted, that, the public functionary upon whom the Constitution imposes a positive obligation is the Speaker of Parliament who must give at least ninety days notice in the Gazette of the precise terms of the Bill.
Neither Parliament nor the President had an obligation to gazette the Bill in terms of section 328(3) of the Constitution.
The Speaker, in compliance with section 328(3) of the Constitution, published the terms of the Bill in the Gazette and the Bill was presented to Parliament more than ninety days after such gazetting. The Bill that was presented to Parliament was the same Bill that had been published in the Gazette by the Speaker.
He submitted, that, whilst section 328(4) of the Constitution imposes an obligation on Parliament to ensure public participation, it imposes no obligation on him as President. For that reason, if the Court finds that Parliament breached that provision, such breach cannot be imputed to him as President.
He further submitted, that, immediately after gazetting the precise terms of the Bill, as was done in this matter, Parliament was required to do three things:
(i) Firstly, it was supposed to invite members of the public to express their views on the Bill.
(ii) Secondly, it was required to convene meetings and provide facilities to enable the public to air their views.
(iii) Thirdly, it was required to hold public hearings and receive written submissions.
He submitted, that, in respect of all three requirements, there was compliance by Parliament. The Bill was gazetted on 17 January 2020; the first invitation for the public to air its views was made on 22 January 2020, five days after the gazetting. Such invitation was therefore immediate; Parliament further convened public meetings during which members of the public aired their views on the Bill. There were also radio programmes and zoom meetings.
In oral submissions, counsel for the President abandoned two preliminary points previously raised. These are:
(i) Whether the application is invalid for citing section 16(2)(d) of the Constitution; and
(ii) Whether there is a pending matter involving the same parties and in which the same relief is sought.
He however submitted, that, the applicants have employed insulting and abusive language in their answering affidavit, and, for that reason, should bear the costs of the application.
On the competence of the Attorney General to represent the President, he submitted, that, since the applicants had abandoned this point, the court should not determine the matter as urged by the applicants as there is a lot of material that is not before the court; in particular, details on the sui generis position of the Attorney-General.
On the substance, he submitted that section 328 of the Constitution does not impose any obligation on the President, and, further, that there is no obligation on the President to supervise proceedings in Parliament.
In terms of section 131 of the Constitution, the President is required to assent to Bills or refuse to do so. In the context of this matter, that is his only obligation. He cannot be accused of breaching the Constitution where Parliament has committed a breach of its Rules.
SUBMISSIONS BY AMICUS CURIAE
Ms Sanhanga, as amicus curiae, submitted that it was common cause that the original Bill was duly gazetted for the minimum period of ninety days and that the public had an opportunity to comment on it before it was debated in Parliament. It was also common cause that the Bill which was originally gazetted was the same Bill which was presented to the National Assembly. It was also common cause that the Bill was amended at the Committee Stage by the National Assembly and that the Bill, as amended, was not again gazetted after the amendments and that no further consultation of members of the public took place. The Bill was then passed in both houses with the requisite two-thirds majority and was assented to by the President and gazetted on 7 May 2021.
Section 328(2) of the Constitution provides that an Act of Parliament that amends the Constitution must do so in express terms. The section refers to an Act and not a Bill. The amendments made by the Act are in express terms.
Therefore, section 328(2) of the Constitution was complied with.
She further submitted, that, whilst Parliament has the general power to amend the Constitution, pursuant to section 117(2)(a) as read with section 328 of the Constitution, there is no express provision in the Constitution for the amendment of Bills.
However, paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution provides for the amendment of Bills in general, which would also include a Constitutional Bill.
It was also her submission, that, contrary to the assertions made by the respondents, section 5 of the Fifth Schedule provides for amendments to be made to Bills in the house of Parliament to which the Bill has been transmitted and not the originating house. In other words, the section does not provide for amendments to be made by the originating house, unlike in this case where the amendments were made in the National Assembly.
Section 139 provides for Standing Orders which govern the passing of Bills, and, in section 154 of the Standing Orders, provision is made for the amendment of Bills in the National Assembly as the originating house. Based on those provisions, the originating house of Parliament is therefore entitled to amend Bills, including Constitutional Bills.
It was her further submission, that, section 328(4) of the Constitution merely provides for consultation through public meetings and written submissions. In other words, the public simply gives its opinion on the proposed amendment, and, although the legislative authorities are expected to listen to those views, they are not obliged to act on them.
It is Parliament, through the two houses, which would then take into account those views and craft a Bill which accords with the views of the public and constituencies as represented by each member of Parliament.
In her view, in such a situation, there is no requirement for gazetting the amendments as the stage for consultation would have been passed.
In any event, the applicants have not stated what the views of the public were.
Accordingly, there has been no violation of section 328(3)(4) of the Constitution and the suggestion that this court should infer requirements which are not expressly stated as being mandatory would impermissibly undermine the legislature which is itself a representative of the people.
This, she further submitted, would not only result in arbitrariness in the law but would have, as a consequence, the judiciary amending the Constitution.
ISSUES ARISING FOR DETERMINATION
From the foregoing, it is apparent that a number of preliminary issues arise and that they require to be determined in limine.
In the event that the preliminary issues are not dispositive of the dispute between the parties, the sole issue that would arise for determination is whether the amendments effected to the Bill should have followed the procedure provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 328 of the Constitution....,.
It was Parliament's submission, taken for the first time in heads of argument, that, there has been fatal non-joinder of both the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs.
Parliament has argued that both have a direct and substantial interest in this matter and particularly so in the case of the Minister, who introduced the Bill in question in the first instance.
By taking the point that there has been a fatal non-joinder of the Attorney-General and the Minister only for the first time in heads of argument, Parliament has taken away the opportunity for the applicants to respond to this submission; conduct which does not accord with the tenets of a fair trial: see President of the Senate and 2 ORS v Gonese and 3 Ors CC01-21.
Ordinarily, as happened in President of the Senate and 2 ORS v Gonese and 3 Ors CC01-21, such a preliminary objection may be dismissed on that basis alone.
However, the question of fatal non-joinder is also a question of law, and, our jurisprudence is clear, that, subject to considerations of fairness and prejudice, such a question can be taken at any time, even for the first time on appeal.
This position is so well established in this jurisdiction that it is unnecessary to cite any authorities in support thereof.
