Judgment No. CCZ 3/14 7 Const. Application No. CCZ 64/13 other in keeping therewith, the Court conducting the inquiry into the constitutionality or otherwise of the provision must adopt the meaning which will give effect to the Constitution. The presumption of constitutionality was explained thus by GEORGES CJ in Zimbabwe Township Developers v Lou’s Shoes (Pvt) Ltd 1983(2) ZLR 376 at 381F : “Arguments have also been addressed at some length on the presumption of constitutionality. It is a phrase which appears to me to be pregnant with the possibilities of misunderstanding. Clearly a litigant who asserts that an Act of Parliament or a Regulation is unconstitutional must show that it is. In such a case the judicial body charged with deciding that issue must interpret the Constitution and determine its meaning and thereafter interpret the challenged piece of legislation to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it falls within that meaning or it does not. The challenged piece of legislation may, however, be capable of more than one meaning. If that is the position then if one possible interpretation falls within the meaning of the Constitution and others do not, then the judicial body will presume that the law makers intended to act constitutionally and uphold the piece of legislation so interpreted. This is one of the senses in which a presumption of constitutionality can be said to arise. One does not interpret the Constitution in a restricted manner in order to accommodate the challenged legislation. The Constitution must be properly interpreted, adopting the approach accepted above. Thereafter the challenged legislation is examined to discover whether it can be interpreted to fit into the framework of the Constitution”. The learned Judge referred to the case of Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramesh Mootoo (1974) 28 WLR 304 in which the following passage from Crowell v Benson (1931) 285 US 22 at 26 (per HUGHES CJ) was quoted with approval: “when the validity of an Act of Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.” While I am mindful that no challenge has been raised as to the constitutionality of s 81B(2), the need to ascertain the meaning of the provision has arisen because of the apparent conflict with the Constitution which arises from the interpretation of