Judgment No. CCZ 14/2017 Const. Application No. SC 263/12 argued. Despite this concession, he, at this very late stage, insisted that the constitutionality of the relevant provision was a live issue for determination by this court and suggested that the court could call for further submissions and argument by the parties. It was also Mr Mpofu’s submission that the facts alleged by the State as having been committed by the applicants do not constitute an offence, whether in terms of sub para (v) or sub para (f) of para 2 of the Third Schedule, and that the said allegations are not consistent with sense. He submitted that this was so as it is not possible for ten people to simultaneously wave placards, distribute fliers, walk along a street and disturb vehicular and human traffic as each applicant would need more than two arms to achieve such a feat. He further submitted that the allegations against the applicants are so senseless that it should not be necessary for this court to inquire into whether the correct charge ought to be paragraph (f) or para (v). He referred to this court’s decision in Jennifer Williams & Anor v Phathekile Msipa N.O. & Ors, SC 22/10 and submitted that by the same reasoning that was applied in that case, the alleged actions of the applicants in casu must be found to be a legitimate exercise of the applicants’ constitutional rights. He further submitted that the court therefore ought to declare the applicants’ prosecution unlawful and order a permanent stay of proceedings against them. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT Mr Nyazamba, for the respondent, contended in response that the matter is not properly before this court for the following reasons. Firstly, the magistrate looked at the wrong factors by dealing with it as if it involved a charge based on para 2 (v) despite submissions by both sides having been made on the basis of, and with reference to, a charge premised on para 2 (f). The magistrate further fell into error citing and relying on the case of Jennifer Williams 5