Commissioner of Police 1980 (2) SA 369 (ZC); Principal Immigration Officer and Another v TOR 1993 (1) ZLR 71 (SC), Cl1inhamora v Angwa Furnitures SS228/96; State v Chigugudza 1996 (1) ZLR 28 (S); Chairman Public Service Commission v Zimta 1987 (1) SA 209; Commercial Farmers Union v Minister of Lands 2000 (2) ZLR 469 (S). 43. In Hewlett v Minister of Finance 1981 ZLR 571, Fieldsend CJ stated as follows:, ((.. .In genera~ the princip~es governmg the interpretation of a Constitution are basicaUy no different from those interpretation of any other govermng ~egis~ation. the It is necessary to ~oak to the words used and to deduce from them what any particu~ar section, phrase or words means, having regard to the overaU context in which it appears." 44. With great respect to Fieldsend CJ, the above is a very simplistic view of Constitutional interpretation. As argued above and as fully accepted 1n other jurisdictions, Constitutional interpretation is not the same as the statutory interpretation. After all the Constitution itself says it isn't. Section 46 of the Constitution reads as follows:, (((1) When interpreting this Chapter, a court, tribuna~, forum or body- Page 17 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Loveness Mndzurn & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tendai Biti Law