Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 text presented to the PLC. This was contrary not only to the express provisions of Standing Order 32 but also to the requirements of s 139(3) of the Constitution in terms of which the procedures and processes of parliamentary committees, as provided for in Standing Orders, must encourage the involvement of members of all political parties in Parliament. In short, Parliament must hear the views of all members of the PLC. As this did not happen in casu, the impugned Bill was not properly examined by the PLC. The factual conspectus that appears from the documents filed of record is as follows. According to the minutes of the PLC meeting held on 9 June 2016, all five members of the PLC were in attendance to consider the original Bill (HB 1. 2016). Several issues were raised in discussion, including the procedure for the removal from office of mayors and councillors and the appointment of the envisaged independent tribunals. The PLC then resolved to invite the third respondent (the Minister) and the Attorney-General for discussion before it issued its certificate of approval. The next meeting was scheduled to be held on 13 June 2016. This meeting was duly attended by all five members of the PLC as well as the Minister, the Deputy Attorney-General and other officials. The members of the PLC aired their views and concerns surrounding the Bill. At the conclusion of the meeting, the PLC resolved that various amendments be made to the Bill relating to the clauses discussed and be circulated amongst the members of the PLC before the issuance of its certificate. The date of the next meeting of the PLC was to be announced. 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. 17