Judgment No. CCZ 14/2017 Const. Application No. SC 263/12 & Anor v Phathekile Msipa & Ors SC 22/10, (the Williams 2010 case) thereby misdirecting herself and erroneously stating, in the process, that the allegations in the cited case were similar to the allegations in casu. It was Mr Nyazamba’s submission that in addition, the magistrate did not make a finding, as was incumbent upon her, whether or not the application for referral to this court was frivolous or vexatious. He urged the court to dismiss the application for that reason as well. Mr Nyazamba also submitted that should the court be of the view that the matter was properly referred and is therefore properly before it, then it is pertinent to note that the charge against the applicants was amended during the proceedings before the magistrate by the deletion of para 2 (v) and the substitution thereof with para 2 (f). He submitted that the constitutionality of para 2 (f) is however not a live issue before this Court as no argument was advanced in the court a quo on it. He described para 13 of the applicants’ written application before the magistrate as being merely a preamble to the arguments purportedly meant to be made before the magistrate but which arguments were never made. He submitted that the rest of the submissions following after para 13 do not show how the provisions of para 2 (f) infringe the various rights listed therein. It was Mr Nyazamba’s further submission that the only question that could, in the circumstances, possibly be properly before this court is whether the allegations levelled against the applicants establish the existence of reasonable suspicion of them having committed the offence with which they were charged, such as would entitle the State to interfere with their right to liberty. It was also his submission that in the respondent’s view, the allegations levelled 6