It was not open to ZANU PF and the MDC formations to argue that they had an agreement amongst themselves to provide for the increased number of Ministers. As part of the law of Zimbabwe, the number of Ministers was set by Schedule 8 to the Constitution and not by any interparty agreement. Any alteration to the Schedule required a constitutional amendment. The issue was brought before the High Court by a concerned governance NGO and an individual taxpayer. In a legally questionable ruling5, the Judge President, George Chiweshe,6 held that the “anomalous” appointments did not “outrageously exceed” the number provided for by the Constitution, and, that if they were set aside: it would destabilize the government of national unity and cause unnecessary confusion within the body politic and prejudice the public interest at large. That cannot be said to be consistent with the intention of the legislature in enacting Schedule 8 to the Constitution. The obvious flaw in this “reasoning”, apparent even to lay persons, is that (even if this kind of approach were jurisprudentially permissible, which it is not) if the intention of the legislature was to create stability, as Chiweshe JP simply declared was so, it had determined that this was to be accomplished with and by an establishment of 31 Ministers, and not 41. Justice Chiweshe’s ruling came only weeks after a judgment given by the Supreme Court in an analogous matter which did set aside the appointment of an official, the Speaker of Parliament. The Supreme Court had ruled that election of the Speaker of Parliament was invalid as the Standing Orders of Parliament, as read with the Constitution, required that Parliament “shall conduct the election of the Speaker by a secret ballot.” The Chief Justice stated that “the golden rule of interpretation is that one has to give the words of a statute their primary meaning”. Accordingly, the word “shall” had to be read as meaning precisely that. The use of the word “shall”, his honour ruled, rendered the use of a secret ballot peremptory. The matter would be different, he stated, if the word “may” had been used. The failure to comply with the peremptory requirement of secrecy rendered the election of the Speaker and thus his appointment invalid. The “explicit” language of the statute allowed no variation, the court ruled.7 Justice Chiweshe, contrary to this ruling of Supreme Court, felt the peremptory and explicit language requiring that there shall be 31 Ministers, no more and no less, could in fact be varied. Justice Chiweshe’s judgement was appealed and argued on 10th July 2012.8 Neither Counsel for the State nor the Supreme Court seemed to find any merit in the Justice Chiweshe’s ruling in the High Gibson Sibanda (who lost his Ministerial post in any event on account of having no parliamentary seat and is since deceased) Minister of State in Deputy Prime Minister Mutambara’s Office; ZANU PF John Nkomo [Appointed Senator] Minister of State in President's Office; Flora Bhuka [MP Midlands] Minister of State in Vice-President Msika's office; Sylvester Nguni [MP Mashonaland West] Minister of State in Vice-President Mujuru's office;Saviour Kasukuwere [MP Mashonaland Central] Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment; Joseph Made [Appointed Senator] Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development; Walter Mzembi [MP Masvingo Province] Tourism and Hospitality Industry 5 Moven Kufa & Ors v The President of the Republic of Zimbabwe HH 86-11 – judgment delivered on 06.04.11. 6 Justice Chiweshe was appointed as Judge President without the consent of the Prime Minister and his appointment as such is thus questionable – see below. 7 See Moyo & Ors v Zvoma N.O. & Ors SC28/10, judgment delivered on 11.03.11. 8 Past judgments relating to matters of this ilk have usually been determined by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds and the merits avoided, often with the claim that those opposing the State lack the necessary locus standi.