174 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal In respect of the constitutionality of the conduct of the President or Parliament, it is only the constitutional court32 which can make a final decision in regards thereof. Recourse Against the President As a general rule, the President enjoys immunity meaning that whilst in office the President cannot be sued for civil or criminal proceedings for any act of a personal nature. Although, if relating to acts done in an official capacity there lies no privilege of immunity. Outside of this right to immunity there are two courses aggrieved parties may take against the President. The first recourse is to approach the courts for an order declaring that the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation, as was the case in the Nkandla judgment. According to the constitutional court rules33 of Zimbabwe an application can be made to the constitutional court by way of a court application supported by an affidavit which details the constitutional obligation in question which the President has failed to uphold. The other resource remains a preserve for the political arena as it relates to the prerogative of Parliament under s 97 to institute the prescribed procedure for the removal of the President from office. It is in essence an impeachment process designed to investigate any alleged violations of the constitution listed in s 97. This entails the passing of a joint resolution by the Senate and the National Assembly passed by at least one-half of their total membership. The political aspect of this process stems from the fact that the participants are elected officials who serve as representatives of specific constituencies and not as representatives of the court. However, it should be pointed out that the mere fact (as in the case of the Nkandla judgment) that defenders in Zimbabwe in 2003: separation or consolidation of powers on the part of the state?’ 32 Section 167 (3) 33 Statutory Instrument 61 of 2016 section 27