"it is a requirement of the rule of law that the exercise of public power by the executive and other functionaries should not be arbitrary. Decisions must be rationally related to the purpose for which the power was given, otherwise they are in effect arbitrary and inconsistent with this requirement. It follows that in order to pass constitutional scrutiny the exercise of public power by the executive and other functionaries must, at least, comply with this requirement. If it does not, if falls short of the standards demanded by our Constitution for such action. "2 20. On the question of content, there must be rationality 1n terms of whatever the government or parliament does. The absence of a rational relationship, donates arbitrariness, which clearly is invalid. Lastly, the concept invokes two self evident statements that will not be expanded on. The first is democracy and accountability. See for instance United Democratic Movement v President of the Republic of South Africa (No.2) 2003 (1) SA 495 (CC). The second is the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances. 21. On the latter issue in South Africa Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath 2001 (1) SA 883 (CC); the Constitutional Court stated as follows:~ "there can be no doubt that our Constitution provides for such a separation of powers and that laws inconsistent with what the Constitution requires in this regards are invalid" 22. See also State v Dodo 2001 (3) SA 382 (CC). 2 See also Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council1999 (1) SA 374 (CC); New National Party v Government of the Republic of South Africa 1999 (3) SA 191 (CC); President of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union 2000 (1) SA (CC). Page 6 of46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Loveness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tendai Biti Law