Judgment No. CCZ 9/2015 4 Const. Application No. CCZ 287/11 [10] The position is settled that a judicial officer faced with an application for referral has no option but to refer, unless, in the opinion of the Court, the raising of the question is frivolous and vexatious – Martin v Attorney-General 1993 (1) ZLR 153 (S) 156 H. [11] The Magistrate at Nyanga did not, as he should have, ask himself whether the issues raised were not frivolous and vexatious. Indeed it appears the magistrate was not sure as to what was required of him. He made no finding that the application was not frivolous or vexatious. In justifying the referral of the issues to the Supreme Court, he stated:“Over-detention and alleged kidnapping of some of the accused persons would need the Supreme Court to look into the matter. It is therefore clear as the issues complained of are also linked to the death of one of the accused persons. The Supreme Court would need therefore to make a proper enquiry (sic). The court is of the decision that the issues raised concerning the declaration of rights are referred to Supreme Court for determination.” [12] The above remarks clearly demonstrate that the Magistrate had no idea what he was supposed to do. He seemed to think that the factual inquiry was to be undertaken by the Supreme Court – clearly a misdirection on his part. This misdirection resulted in an even more serious irregularity, to which I now turn. AN APPLICANT MUST ADDUCE EVIDENCE [13] Various allegations of impropriety had been made against the police and supporters of the Zanu (PF) Political Party. No evidence was led to substantiate these. The prosecutor made it clear that the facts were in dispute. [14] Before permitting an accused person to raise the question whether his constitutional rights have been violated, it is a requirement that ample written notice of such an application should be given to the State. This is because the prosecution is entitled to