Constitutional Court Mawarire v Mugabe NO & Ors Chidyausiku CJ (a) Whether the applicant has locus standi to approach the Supreme Court in terms of s 24 (1) of the Constitution The applicant avers in his founding affidavit that his application is premised on s 24 (1) of the Constitution, which provides as follows: "If any person alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him ... then without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person... may apply to the Supreme Court for redress." Essentially, the applicant contends that his right to the protection of the law in terms of s18(1) of the Constitution has been, is being and is likely to continue being violated. He asserts that the failure by the first respondent to fix the date for the holding of Presidential, Parliamentary and local government elections when, at law, according to him, the said elections are looming and are now due, violates his right to the protection of the law. He further claims protection of the law as a person duly entitled to vote, with a vested right to vote in an election at a stipulated time. He then proceeds to demonstrate his fears of the real or at least perceived violation of his Constitutional rights, as follows: "The first respondent for reasons that I am not clear about, has not carried out his functions in fixing a date for the elections, even as the expiry of Parliament looms dangerously close. His inaction will lead to a state where Zimbabwe may, in fact, run unconstitutionally. The misleading signals that have been sent by some of the respondents cited herein have been the cause for great concern and may be an indication, coupled with (the) first respondent's inaction, that come June 29, 2013, a general election will not have been called, and Zimbabwe will be hobbling along illegally, without a Parliament no interpretation whatsoever of the constitution could ever validate the existence of a situation of the State without the legislative arm of government. Such an unprecedented situation would be a crippling negation of a fundamental tenet of our democracy which is a sine qua non of our constitutional order.” The applicant further bases his locus standi on s18(1a) of the constitution which, together with s18(1), states as follows: “18 Provisions to secure protection of law (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every person is entitled to the protection of the law. [Subsection amended by section 3 of Act No. 4 of 1993 (Amendment No. 12)] (1a) Every public officer has duty towards every person in Zimbabwe to exercise his or her functions as a public officer in accordance with the law and to observe and uphold the rule of law. [Subsection inserted by section 4 of Act No 1 of 2009 (Amendment No. 19)]” A “public officer” is defined as “a person holding or acting in any public office” and “public office” is defined as “ a paid office in the service of the State”. Thus, s 18(1a) clearly confers a right on any and every Zimbabwean who is affected by a failure to uphold the law to approach this Court in terms of s 24(1) The objections by the second and fourth respondents to the applicant’s right to approach this court for relief are based on a restrictive approach to locus standi in the pre2009 period and a failure to appreciate that the 2009 Amendment No. 19 has thrown wide 3