Judgment No CCZ 5/14 6 Const. Application No CCZ 114/13 pedantic interpretation; to be preferred is one which serves the interest of the Constitution and best carries out its objects and promotes its purpose. All relevant provisions are to be considered as a whole and where rights and freedoms are conferred on persons, derogations therefrom, as far as the language permits, should be narrowly or strictly construed.” CONCLUSION The second respondent concedes that the applicant is entitled to dual citizenship by virtue of the Constitution but insists that he be treated as an alien if he enters Zimbabwe using a South African passport. This, it was submitted, is because the second respondent is governed by the Regulations. It must be emphatically stated here that the Regulations are governed by the Constitution and not the Constitution by the Regulations. Any law which is inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency1. To say that the applicant, as a citizen by birth, is entitled to dual citizenship conferred by the Constitution and then to deny him the right to freely enter and leave Zimbabwe, which right is afforded to all citizens in terms of s 66, on the grounds that he has presented a foreign passport, is to deprive him of the benefits of the enjoyment of two fundamental rights conferred on him by the Constitution of Zimbabwe, namely the right to dual citizenship inherent in his birthright as a Zimbabwe citizen by birth and the right to freedom of movement. A purposive interpretation of the right conferred in s 66 read with the applicant’s entitlement to dual citizenship is that the applicant’s right to enter, remain and leave Zimbabwe cannot be restricted even when he presents or travels upon a foreign passport. It is for the Regulations to be brought into conformity with the Constitution and not for the Constitution to conform to the Regulations. 1 Constitution of Zimbabwe s2 It is also for the framers of the