Judgment No CCZ 8/16 16 Const. Application No CCZ 48/15 the questions at hand. What is in issue in the present matter is the legality of differentiation in treatment as between different categories of persons who are imprisoned. The applicant contends that certain provisions contained in Part XX of the Prisons Act, in particular, ss 112, 113, 114 and 115, are unconstitutional to the extent that they exclude whole life prisoners from the parole process and thereby contravene the right to equal protection and benefit of the law under s 56(1) of the Constitution. The respondents argue that the Prisons Act properly differentiates between serious and trivial offenders. Thus, a different system is in place for life and death row prisoners who are dealt with under section 121 of the Act in conjunction with s 112 of the Constitution. These sections provide for executive clemency and constitute an adequate remedy in the instant case. However, as regards the prerogative of clemency, Mr. Chimombe was unable to provide any statistics as to how many life prisoners have actually been released under that system. Moreover, he accepts that this process lies entirely within the realm of executive discretion and is therefore not justiciable. Section 112 of the Prisons Act establishes the Prisoners Release Advisory Board. It also provides for the composition, functions and proceedings of the Board, the tenure of office of its members and their terms and conditions of office. The principal functions of the Board are to consider cases involving the release of prisoners and to make recommendations for that purpose. In my view, there is nothing intrinsically