170 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal Transparency and accountability as a regional necessity The Nkandla judgment is relevant not just for Zimbabwe23 but has a far-reaching effect on other African countries including Zambia and Kenya whose constitutions and democratic practices espouse the democratic principles of ensuring accountability at the highest level of government. These two examples demonstrate that measures to provide for transparent and accountable conduct which seeks to deter elements of corrupt practices and abuse of office by members of the executive (including the President) is not an unusual constitutional provision; in fact it is a necessary constitutional safeguard found in most progressive democracies. The constitution of Kenya,24 for example, prescribes the conduct of a State officer, and specifically prohibits any conflict between personal interests and public or official duties including a prohibition on receiving certain gifts.25 The constitution goes on to define State office to include the office of the President which means that the President of Kenya has a specific obligation to avoid conflict of interest because there is no exemption from the requirements of s 75. The constitution of Zambia26 provides for the impeachment of the President under the following circumstances; (a) a violation of a provision of this constitution or other law; (b) a crime under international law; or (c) gross misconduct. The constitution of Zambia recognises that the President can violate not only the constitution but also any other ‘law’. Such a provision effectively creates a broader context of prohibited conduct and widens the circumstances under which a President can be removed from office. 23 See s 46 (1) (e) where the constitution of Zimbabwe clearly expresses the need to have regard to foreign law 24 Constitution of Kenya 2010 s 75 25 Section 76 “State officer” means a person holding a State office 26 Section 108