Judgment No CCZ 5/14 5 Const. Application No CCZ 114/13 (a) the right to enter Zimbabwe; (b) immunity from expulsion from Zimbabwe; and (c) the right to a passport or other travel document. (2) Every Zimbabwean citizen and everyone else who is legally in Zimbabwe has the right to— (a) move freely within Zimbabwe; (b) reside in any part of Zimbabwe; and (c) leave Zimbabwe.” It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the two year time-restricted residence permit endorsed by the second respondent on his South African passport is an infringement of his right under s 66 of the Constitution to immunity from expulsion from Zimbabwe, and to enter Zimbabwe on such passport once the two year permit expires or is, at the second respondent’s whim, withdrawn. In view of the submission by Mr Pedzisai, on behalf of the second respondent, that “if the applicant presents a South African passport upon entry into Zimbabwe to the immigration officials he will be treated as an alien and made to apply for a residence permit in terms of the Regulations,” there is, in my view, a real danger of expulsion of the applicant by the second respondent’s officials in the event that the applicant enters Zimbabwe and presents his South African passport endorsed with an expired residence permit, a withdrawn residence permit or no residence permit at all. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT The approach to interpretation of a constitutional right has been laid down in many decisions of the predecessor of this Court. Thus in Rattigan & Ors v Chief Immigration Officer & Ors 1994 (2) ZLR 54 (S) at 57 F-H the Court held: “This Court has on several occasions in the past pronounced upon the proper approach to constitutional construction embodying fundamental rights and protections. What is to be avoided is the imparting of a narrow, artificial, rigid and