JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 78 ____________________________________________________________________ s 28(4) of the Constitution. In the circumstances, he had the right to approach this Court directly in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution and had legal standing to file the application. Sandura JA noted that in the past the Supreme Court had taken a broad view of legal standing in applications of this nature in order to determine the real issues raised where the applicant had a real and substantial interest in the matter. He cited the case of Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v Attorney-General & Ors 1993 (1) ZLR 242 (S) at 250 A-E; and Law Society of Zimbabwe & Ors v Minister of Finance 1999 (2) ZLR 231 (S) at 233G-234G. In the circumstances, as the applicant had legal standing, the Court should have determined the real issues raised in this application before the presidential election was held. Comment upon the judgments The judgment by the majority is unsupportable. The applicant was seeking to challenge the legality of new electoral laws passed just before the election by the incumbent president, which laws, he alleged, placed him at a severe disadvantage in the election and were in violation of the Constitution. Simple common sense should tell us that the applicant, as a candidate in the election, had a sufficient interest in the matter and that he was directly affected by the action. It should also tell us that his argument that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the executive action was entirely compelling. Surely no one had a greater interest than the applicant in this matter and no one was as much affected by the executive actions in question than the applicant. As the main opposition candidate in the Presidential election, he selfevidently had a direct and substantial interest to ensure that the election was fairly conducted and that laws were not passed illegally that would render it unfair. The most obvious potential violation of the Declaration of Rights was the violation of his right to protection of the law. The applicant was arguing that only Parliament had the power under the Constitution to change electoral laws and that it had unlawfully delegated this power to the President. He was also arguing that the President had illegally abused these powers to change the electoral laws at the last minute