Judgment No. CCZ 1/2014 7 Const. Application No. SC 240/2010 Section 24(3) provides that: “(3) Where in any proceedings such as are mentioned in subsection (2) any such question as is therein mentioned is not referred to the Supreme Court, then, without prejudice to the right to raise that question on any appeal from the determination of the court in those proceedings, no application for the determination of that question shall lie to the Supreme Court under subsection (1).” The procedure adopted by the High Court in this case had the effect of interrupting the criminal proceedings before determination which in a criminal case is when the accused is convicted and the final sentence delivered. The decision on the question whether there was a reasonable suspicion of the applicants having committed the offences they were charged with to justify placing them on remand had been made by a court of competent jurisdiction and, in the absence of a request that the question whether placing them on remand was likely to violate their right to personal liberty be referred to it for determination, the Supreme Court could not be prevailed upon to exercise its original jurisdiction on the question of the contravention of ss 13(1) and 15(1) of the Constitution. The case of Muchero & Anor v Attorney General 2000 (2) ZLR 286 (SC) is apposite. The facts were that the applicants, who were on bail on allegations of fraud and corruption, challenged the right of the State to continue to remand them for trial and applied for their removal from remand on the grounds that no reasonable suspicion existed that they had committed an offence, as required by s 13(2) (e) of the Constitution. Having heard evidence, the magistrate refused the application. The applicants' counsel requested that the question of whether s 13(2) (e) of the Constitution had been contravened be referred to the Supreme Court under s 24(2) of the Constitution. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court.