POST HEARINGS- This stage largely outlines what the committee will do after each hearing and at the end of all the hearings. Concluding each NPRC public hearing, the chairpersons of each team made it clear that a report that captured community views would be produced and debated in the House of Assembly and the Senate. It was also made clear that written submissions could also be made via email or post of which the addresses were provided. Now the bill awaits the second reading stage in both houses. 5. CONTENT OF THE HEARINGS. Heal Zimbabwe Trust captured views in all the areas that it monitored. The following is a summary of the issues raised during the hearings: Independence of the Commission Sections 235(1a) of the Constitution states that “independent commissions are not subject to direction or control of anyone” Further, section 235(3) also states that “no person may interfere with the functioning of independent commissions”. Therefore communities raised the following concerns regarding the independence of the Commission: The Commission should be allowed to report directly to Parliament instead of going through the Minister. This is because the Minister might alter contents of the report to suit his own agenda. The power given to the Minister to implement the recommendations of the Commission is unconstitutional as it infringes on the independence guaranteed in section 235. Section 8 (7) of the Bill, gives the responsible Minister unlimited powers over the operations of the NPRC. Therefore, this clause would be ultra-vires the constitution. It may also be offensive as to render the Minister guilty of breaching section 8(13) “c and d” of the same Bill which proscribes anyone from “discouraging and dissuading” the NPRC from carrying out its constitutionally mandated duties. The communities are of the views that the Minister alone must not be vest with powers to issue a Certificate regarding the disclosure of evidence or any document if he deems it contrary to public interest. This decision if possible, must be subject to judicial review by courts of law so that it leaves room for transparency. 6