Judgment No. CCZ 4/18 8 Case No. CCZ 3/18 Paragraph (2) follows directly after para 1 (1) and must, logically, not be read independently from it, as the appellants seek to do. Doing so is to interpret para 1 (2) out of context1, with the possible result of giving it an unintended, if not erroneous, import. The whole of para 1 therefore reads as follows: 1. Qualifications for registration as voter “(1) (2) Subject to subparagraph (2) and to para 2, a person is qualified to be registered as a voter on the voters roll of a constituency if he or she— (a) is of or over the age of eighteen years; and (b) is a Zimbabwean citizen. The Electoral Law may prescribe additional residential requirements to ensure that voters are registered on the most appropriate voters roll, but any such requirements must be consistent with this Constitution, in particular with s 67.” (my emphasis) If this whole provision is read together with s 67 (3), as it should since it addresses the same issue, the simple meaning is that while para 1 (1) gives the right to vote to every Zimbabwean citizen of or over 18 years of age, that right alone is not enough. It merely qualifies the citizen for registration as a voter, something that he is then required to do. The registration must be effected on a voter’s roll, and that voters’ roll must relate or ‘belong’ to, a given constituency. However, by virtue of para 1 (2) additional residential qualifications may be prescribed, and these would, as it were, complete the package of voting requirements to be met before a citizen is allowed to vote. This point was in my view correctly made in the Bukaibenyu case (supra) where MALABA DCJ (as he then was) had this to say in relation to Zimbabwe’s electoral system: This would run counter to basic principles of Statutory Interpretation, which require that all relevant provisions in a statute, that deal with the subject for interpretation, must be considered together (see Tsvangirai V Mugabe & Others, CCZ 24\17) 1