53. The fact of the matter is that Section 85 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe now brings an almost unlimited right of access to this Honourable Court. That section is of such a wider approach such that, there cannot be any issue surrounding the same. See Ferreira v Levin 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC); Van Rooyen v The State 2001 (4) SA 396; Coetzee v Comitis 2001 (1) 1254 (CC). 54. Section 167 (5) of the Constitution itself provides a further indicator of this word access. 55. Subsection 5 of Section 167 reads as follows:, "Rules of the Constitutional Court must allow a person, when it is in the interest of justice and with or without of the Constitutional Court (a) To bring a constitutional matter directly to the Constitutional Court; (b) To appeal directly to the Constitutional Court from any other court; (c) To appear as a friend of the court." 56. Although Rules of the Court are being framed, it is quite clear that what will be key in future is the interest of justice. Put differently, the unlimited right of access offered by Section 85, is in future going to be qualified by the phrase "interest of justice" which will have to be incorporated in the rules. 57. If that is going to be the criteria then surely one will be hard pressed to find a better case than the present one, where the interest of justice demands that this Court change the same. Page 21 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Love ness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tendai Biti Law