Conclusion The COPAC draft constitution introduces a fundamental departure from the Lancaster House constitution by way of providing for a wider bill of rights with mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of these rights. It also introduces constitutional interpretation that puts human rights at the center of any such interpretation. There are additional limits to presidential authority while the legislature and the judiciary are empowered to check and review the decisions made by the president. To a greater degree, the draft captures the principle of constitutionalism and separation of powers, and it lays down a good legal framework for democratic elections. Overall, the COPAC draft constitution substantially attempts to address the pertinent constitutional issues that have been contributing to the crisis in Zimbabwe. Through judicial review, the courts have a mandate to contribute towards the further improvement of the constitution and development of law in Zimbabwe. The legislature has the authority to amend the constitution subject to the provisions regulating how the constitution can be amended. Therefore, there are opportunities for improvement. In any case, constitution building is a process, and this draft provides a fairly good starting point in comparison to the Lancaster House constitution. If it becomes law and is adequately implemented, this draft constitution will positively influence the quality of political governance in Zimbabwe. It will provide quite a number of opportunities for reform, particularly around the contentious issues of media, security sector, judiciary, human rights reform in Zimbabwe. Several existing pieces of legislation are likely to become inconsistent with the new constitution and therefore will need to be repealed or amended. Institutional reform is also likely to become necessary as several state institutions will need to realign themselves to discharge the mandate given by the new constitution. 36