Judgment No. CCZ 10/14 7 Constitutional Application No. SC 226/10 “24 Enforcement of protective provisions (2) If in any proceedings in the High Court or in any court subordinate to the High Court any question arises as to the contravention of the Declaration of Rights, the person presiding in that court may, and if so requested by any party to the proceedings shall, refer the question to the Supreme Court unless, in his opinion, the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious.” In the application for referral, the applicant contended that the trial court had violated his fundamental right to the protection of the law guaranteed by s 18(1) of the Constitution by putting him on his defence when the evidence for the State failed to establish the essential elements of the offence. The applicant also advanced the following two further grounds in support of the application for referral – (1) first, that the trial magistrate had violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial by failing to give detailed reasons for dismissing the applicant’s application for discharge. In particular, it was contended that the learned trial magistrate should have dealt with each of the six grounds that were advanced in support of the application for discharge, and that his failure to do so was a violation of the applicant’s right or entitlement to a fair trial in terms of s 18(2) of the Constitution. (2) second, that the definition of “lawful authority” in s 2 of the Act is ultra vires s 16B(6) of the Constitution insofar as it seeks to limit the meaning of “lawful authority” to an offer letter, a permit or a land settlement lease. The contention is that Parliament has no authority to truncate the definition of “lawful authority” referred to in the Act without first amending s 16B(6) of the Constitution.