Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 What must be determined in order to found the jurisdiction of this Court is whether the proceedings in casu raise a constitutional question within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court. The first aspect is not disputed. The applicants allege that three specific constitutional obligations were breached in the passage of the impugned legislation: the Bill in question was not gazetted; the Bill was not examined by the PLC; and there was no public participation as required by the Constitution before the Bill was passed by Parliament. There can be no doubt that these are constitutional questions pertaining to the fulfilment or otherwise of constitutional requirements. The next critical aspect is whether these constitutional questions fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court. Do they revolve around the fulfilment of purely procedural requisites that are susceptible to the review jurisdiction of the High Court, or possibly the Supreme Court, and therefore outside the sole domain of this Court? Or do they concern the failure to fulfil constitutional obligations within the contemplation of s 167(2)(d) so as to render them amenable to the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court? In King’s case (supra), which is strenuously relied upon by Mr Uriri, the Supreme Court of Appeal drew a clear distinction between procedural prerequisites and constitutional duties. The court contrasted: “legal limitations that arise from procedural prerequisites and from other limitations of legislative power with those that derive from the imposition of duties.” [my emphasis] DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 8