member of the Commission from office in terms of section 237(3) as read with section 187 of the Constitution. Therefore, simply reviewing performance for purposes of re-appointing as envisaged in clause 3(6) to (8) is unconstitutional. 2. Clause 6 Functions of the Commission Clause 6(1) (b) is in violation of Section 252(b) of the Constitution which sets out the functions of the Commission. It purports to limit the functions of the Commission to only producing a report and making recommendations to the Minister instead of implementing their mandate as bestowed by the Constitution. The Bill must allow the Commission to ―develop and implement programmes to promote national healing, unity and cohesion in Zimbabwe and the peaceful resolution of dispute‖, as provided in section 252. The Committee is of the view that Clause 6(1) (b) must be deleted. Further the additional functions of the Bill to the Commission should add on rather than limit what the Constitution has given the Commission. Clause 8 Manner of Conducting Investigations The clause empowers the Minister to issue a ―Ministerial Certificate‖ that the evidence to be adduced during a hearing is contrary to public or economic interests whereupon such evidence is to be heard in camera. Issuance of Ministerial Certificates and conducting closed hearing means there is no way to tell if justice was served based on that evidence. The provision is similar to provisions of Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07], which states that a Minister may prevent the disclosure in criminal proceedings of evidence which the Minister considers would prejudice State security. This may appear to be a necessary provision with the intention of protecting the State but on the other hand it infringes on the rights to administrative justice and right to fair hearing, section 68 and 69 respectively. These rights are fundamental in administration of justice which the Commission has to adhere to in order to execute its constitutional mandate. Feltoe G, in his book, ―A Guide to Administrative and Local Government Law in Zimbabwe‖, highlights the fact that evidence excluded due to a State privilege claim in a civil matter may be vital to the proof of the claim. In a criminal case, even more drastic consequences can occur because the excluded evidence may be pivotal to the successful advancement of some defence and thus an accused might be convicted, whereas if the evidence had been available, he might have been acquitted. The Committee is of the opinion that the certificate must be obtained by the Minister in charge of Security and Defence or any other Minister who claims that the evidence qualifies for a Ministerial Certificate, and such issuance must be subject to judicial review. The relevant Minister must approach the Courts where he feels that there is evidence which should be heard in camera. The Court has the safety valve of judicial review as they are allowed to take a judicial peek and decide whether the evidence is indeed harmful or not. 21