Upon issuing a Certificate, the Bill states that the Commission will hear the case in a closed hearing. This militates against the spirit of transparency and public dialogue which the Commission is expected to facilitate. On this particular issue, HZT recommends that the clauses protecting the security of the state must be clearly outlined. The extent to which the NPRC can investigate reported cases should be consistent with the constitution and not furthering impunity under the guise of national security and protecting state secrets. Wide discretion and interpretation of national security interests would undermine justice and reconciliation efforts. Furthermore, the Bill does not offer any alternative in the event that the concerned Minister has vested interests in the case put before the commission. HZT therefore, argues that this role of issuing certificates should entirely rest in the powers of the Commission itself because if done by the Minister, it amounts to interference with the functioning of a commission consequently violating Section 235 of the Constitution. The above clause has the ancillary effect of negatively affecting the good intention of establishing the truth. If the Minister’s powers are left unchecked with regards to investigations it means the possibility of getting quality confessions and other revelations will be critically diminished as most information can then become classified easily. iii) Ministerial interference with appointments to the NPRC (Commissioners and Secretariat) HZT is approaching the above matter on two fronts. Firstly, the text in the NPRC Bill is incongruent with the text in Section 235 -237 of the constitution with regards to how Commissioners and even the Secretariat of the NPRC are appointed and removed from office. Genuine concerns exist, that the current text in the Bill might have been deliberately crafted to have the Minister be responsible to appoint Secretariat staff so that the secretariat staff at the ONHRI can be transferred to the NPRC. This compromises Section 234 of the constitution which empowers the Commission to employ its own staff and regulate their condition of service. More disquieting is the fact that the Minister as outlined in the Bill is vested with powers to appoint among others civil servants as part of the NPRC secretariat; the Chief Executive Officer and the Secretary of the NPRC. This position questions the independence of the NPRC since it cannot recruit or appoint its own secretariat. It is our submission that the Minister and the Civil Service Commission can only give guidelines on recruitment, and administrative management of staff. This is consistent with section 234 of the Constitution which gives independent Commissions power to employ staff and, subject to the law, to regulate their conditions of service. 5