Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 19 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 A careful reading of s 16B(6) of the Constitution shows that it specifically allows Parliament to create a criminal offence for any person, without lawful authority, to possess or occupy gazetted land or other State land. For Parliament to successfully create such an offence it has to define the concept of “lawful authority” first. The framers of the Constitution, by expressly conferring on Parliament the power to enact a law that criminalises the possession or occupation of gazetted land by any person “without lawful authority”, must have intended to confer on the Legislature the power to define the concept of “lawful authority". Parliament could not have properly enacted a valid law that criminalises the occupation or use of land without defining what constitutes “lawful authority”. A criminal enactment that does not define what constitutes “lawful authority” would be too vague. An enactment that creates a criminal offence has to be sufficiently clear and precise to be constitutional. A citizen is constitutionally entitled to know exactly when he/she contravenes the law. The definition of “lawful authority” enables the citizen to know exactly when it is that he can occupy gazetted land lawfully without committing a criminal offence. The facts and circumstances of this case are distinguishable from those in SC Shaw (Pvt) Ltd supra. In SC Shaw (Pvt) Ltd supra Parliament had enacted laws, which in effect limited the Administrative Court’s discretion that it previously enjoyed in determining whether reasonably necessary grounds for the acquisition of the land existed. In this case, there was no form of “lawful authority” enjoyed by the former owners or occupiers of gazetted land that has been negated by s 2 of the Act. The allegation that the definition of “lawful authority” provided for in s 2 of the Act impinges upon s 16B(6) of the Constitution is far-fetched and premised on an incorrect interpretation of that provision.