Judgment No. CCZ 6/2016 6 Const. Application No CCZ 28/14 (3) (4) The rules of every court must provide for the procedure to be followed in cases where relief is sought under subsection (1), and those rules must ensure that: (a) the right to approach the court under subsection (1) is fully facilitated; (b) formalities relating to the proceedings, including their commencement, are kept to a minimum; (c) the court, while observing the rules of natural justice, is not unreasonably restricted by procedural technicalities; and (d) a person with particular expertise may, with the leave of the court, appear as a friend of the court. The absence of rules referred to in subsection (3) does not limit the right to commence proceedings under subsection (1) and to have the case heard and determined by a court.” The submission by the respondents in their heads of argument that at the time of the hearing the applicant was no longer a Member of Parliament is common cause. I agree with the submission on behalf of the respondents that the applicant could not found his locus standi on his former status as a Member of Parliament. The applicant however faces a more serious hurdle. The right allegedly infringed is not a fundamental right enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution. Accordingly, an approach in terms of s 85 to vindicate the alleged infringement of ss 267, 270 and 273 is not available to the applicant. I find no merit in the applicant’s averment in para 9.2 of his founding affidavit (quoted above) 5 that anyone should be allowed to bring any constitutional application before this Court. To allow this totally unrestricted approach would be a violation of the Constitution which has restricted the direct approach to the vindication of fundamental rights6 and has itself outlined other methods7 of approach to this Court. Thus, to use the words of the applicant, ‘the first leg’ on which the application is based cannot stand. 5 At para [4] s 85 (1) 7 See for example s175 6