Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 they particularised the precise manner in which their views were disregarded in the formulation of the final version of the Bill that was presented to Parliament. These deficiencies are compounded by the abandonment, at the hearing of this matter, of their alternative argument that the provisions introduced by Act No. 8 of 2016 are inconsistent with s 278(2) of the Constitution. In effect, they have conceded that their concerns regarding the amended version of the Bill are no longer an issue for contestation before this Court. In the event, I am satisfied that the PLC did take into account the collective objections of all five of its members. It follows that the non-adverse report on the Bill submitted to Parliament was prepared on the basis of the collective knowledge of all the members of the PLC in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order 32. This is so notwithstanding that the final meeting of the PLC was attended by only three of its members. By virtue of s 344(2) of the Constitution, those three members, being more than half of the total membership of the PLC, clearly constituted the requisite quorum for the purpose of conducting its proceedings. Whether Public Hearings Properly Conducted As already stated above, the applicants aver that the constitutional requirement of public access to and public hearings in the passage of the impugned Bill was not complied with in respect of Harare Province. They further aver that there was a petition from concerned Harare residents alleging violent intimidation at the public hearings and requesting that they be allowed to properly air their views on the Bill. 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. 19