Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 48 Const. Application No. 79/14 The invalidity of existing legislation inconsistent with a constitutional provision occurs at the time the constitutional provision comes into force and not at the time a fundamental right is said to be infringed or when an order of invalidity is pronounced by a court. A statute which is enacted when the Constitution is in existence becomes invalid the moment it is enacted if it is inconsistent with a constitutional provision. The rule of invalidity of a law or conduct is derived from the fundamental principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. Section 2(1) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of Zimbabwe and any law, practice, custom or conduct inconsistent with its provisions is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. A court does not create constitutional invalidity. It merely declares the position in law at the time the constitutional provision came into force or at the time the impugned statute was enacted. The principle of constitutionalism requires that all laws be consistent with the fundamental law to enjoy the legitimacy necessary for force and effect. It is for this Court to give a final and binding decision on the validity of legislation. In Ferreira v Levin supra at para. 1006I-J ACKERMAN J remarked: “The court’s order does not invalidate the law; it merely declares it invalid. It is very seldom patent, and in most cases is disputed, that pre-constitutional laws are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. It is one of this Court’s functions to determine and pronounce on the validity of laws, including Acts of Parliament. This does not detract from the reality that pre-existing laws either remained valid or became invalid upon the provisions of the Constitution coming into operation.” At p 1007C the learned Judge said: