Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 18 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 It was also submitted that the concept of “lawful authority”, as defined in s 2(1) of the Act is inconsistent with s 16B(6) of the Constitution and therefore ultra vires. I have already cited s 2(1) of the Act in the relevant part that defines “lawful authority”. Section 16B(6) of the Constitution provides as follows: “16B (6) An Act of Parliament may make it a criminal offence for any person, without lawful authority, to possess or occupy land referred to in this section or other State land.” The issue here is whether or not the concept of “lawful authority” in the Constitution is fettered by the definition of “lawful authority” in the Act. The applicant, in his submission that s 2 of the Act is ultra vires s 16B(6) of the Constitution, relied heavily on the decision of this Court in SC Shaw (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Lands and Agricultural Resettlement 2005 (2) ZLR 153 (SC), where it was held that the discretion of the Administrative Court to determine what was reasonably necessary could not be fettered or restricted by an Act of Parliament without first amending the Constitution. I am not persuaded by this submission for a number of reasons. It is common cause that s 16B(6) of the Constitution does not define the concept of “lawful authority”. As a result of this, the applicant’s contention that the Act violates a concept which the Constitution does not define is untenable. The Constitution does not confer on the courts the power to determine what constitutes “lawful authority”. The Act therefore cannot take away from the courts that which the Constitution has not conferred on the courts.