of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence for those ‘lawfully’ within the territory of a State. Further, Article 12 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights guarantees that every individual shall have the right to freedom of movement within the borders of their own state so long as they abide by the state's laws. 11.3 The aforementioned provisions clearly show that every human being has the right to freedom of movement. In the present case, the complainant is in hiding and is scared to go back to his home. This is in direct violation of his constitutional right to move freely within Zimbabwe and to reside in his chosen home area. 12. Whether there was maladministration in the manner in which the police conducted their public duties? 12.1 Section 68 (1) of the Constitution provides that: “Every person has the right to administrative conduct that is lawful, prompt, efficient, proportionate, impartial and both substantively and procedurally fair.” 12.2 In the present case, the police failed to provide the victim conduct that is impartial, lawful, efficient, substantively and procedurally fair. The police’s failure to attend to the victim and their act of referring him from one officer to another amounts to conduct that is inefficient. Further, the police’s statement that the victim’s matter could not be handled (by the ZRP) because it was ‘sensitive’ and their failure to lodge the victim’s brother’s complaint is a violation of the aforesaid provision. In addition, Dhowa’s conduct of keeping the victim without informing the investigating officer also was in violation of section 68. Gono’s conduct of ‘providing logistical assistance’ on a police matter, whether in his personal or official capacity, and Dhowa’s acceptance of such ‘assistance’ amounts to unprocedural and improper conduct on his part and Dhowa’s part. 18 | P a g e