50. However, it is evident from the authorities that a much broader right of access to this Honourable Court was already being defined in the cases which was a decisively departure from the older cases. See Tsvangirayi v Registrar and Others 2002 (1) ZLR 268 (S); Catholic Commission for justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v Attorney General & Others 1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S); Law Society of Zimbabwe & Others v Ministry of Finance 1999 (2) ZLR 213 (S). 51. It however took the Chief Justice, in the matter of jealous Mbizvo Mawarire v Robert Mugabe NO & Others CCZ 1/2013 that in a brutal manner, the older approach that laid mine fields across the path of Constitutional access was laid out. The Chief Justice stated as follows at page 8 of the cycostyled judgment:~ "Certainly, this Court does not expect to appear before it only those who are dripping with the blood of the actual infringement of their rights or those who are shivering incoherently with the fear of the impending threat which has actually engulfed them. This Court will entertain even those who calmly perceive a looming infringement and issue a declaration or appropriate order to stave the threat, more so under the liberal post-2 009 requirements." 52. Surely, if the legal situation brought about by Constitutional Amendment No.l9 of the Zimbabwean Constitution is described as liberal, then the New Zimbabwean Constitution has certainly opened up undue and unlimited access to this Honourable Court hence the flood gates of Constitutional litigation prevailing. This is as it should be. Page 20 of46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Loveness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tendai Biti Law