Constitutional Court Mawarire v Mugabe NO & Ors Chidyausiku CJ Under the narrow approach, the Court chooses between the two possible interpretations the one which does not lead to an absurdity. In this case, it would be the first interpretation or Reading “A” of s 58(1) In Venter v Rex 1906 TS 910 at pp 914-915 INNES C .J. expressed the wider approach, thus: “That being so , it appears to me that the principle we should adopt may be expressed somewhat in this way- that when to give the plain words of the statute their ordinary meaning would lead to absurdity so glaring that it could never have been contemplated by the legislature, or where it would lead to a result contrary to the intention of the legislature, as shown by the context or by such other considerations as the Court is justified in taking into account, the Court may depart from the ordinary effect of the words to the extent necessary to remove the absurdity and to give effect to the true intention of the legislature”. According to the “wider approach” the court has a broad discretion in removing an absurdity being guided ultimately by the intention of the Legislation or in constitutional terms by the intention of the framers of the supreme law. Once an ambiguity or absurdity has been established, it would appear that the proper approach to adopt would be the wider one, where the Court calls into aid historical, schematic, teleological and purposive approaches to interpretation. In the case of Buchanan & Co v Babco Ltd (CA.) [1977] QBD 208 at 213 LORD DENNING followed precisely this method of interpretation long adopted by the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg, thus: "They adopt a method which they call in English by strange words - at any rate they were strange to me - the 'schematic and teleological' method of interpretation. It is not really so alarming as it sounds. All it means is that the judges do not go by the literal meaning of the words or by the grammatical structure of the sentence. They go by the design or purpose which lies behind it. When they come upon a situation which is to their minds within the spirit but not the letter - of the legislation, they solve the problem by looking at the design and purpose of the legislation - at the effect which it was sought to achieve. They then interpret the legislation so as to achieve the desired effect. This means that they fill in gaps, quite unashamedly, without hesitation. They ask simply: what is the sensible way of dealing with this situation so as to give effect to the presumed purpose of the legislation? To our eyes shortsighted by tradition - it is legislation, pure and simple. But to their eyes, it is fulfilling the true role of the courts. They are giving effect to what the legislature intended, or may be presumed to have intended. I see nothing wrong with this. Quite the contrary." If the framers of the Constitution wanted Zimbabwe to function without a Parliament for four months as suggested by the second and fourth respondents, they surely would have said so in clear and explicit terms and they would not have left this to speculation and interpretation. The Constitution itself states emphatically in s 52: "Provided that ... no law shall be deemed to amend, add to or repeal any provision of this Constitution unless it does so in express terms." Therefore, the only interpretation that can be given to this section is one that favours constitutionalism. It is common cause that the current Constitution is based on the fundamental principles of separation of powers between the three arms of State - the 9