Constitutional Court Mawarire v Mugabe NO & Ors Malaba DCJ MALABA DCJ; I have read the judgement prepared by the learned Chief Justice. I do not, with respect, agree with it for reasons I proceed to set out. The applicant approached the court seeking redress in terms of s24(1) of the former Constitution. I say the former constitution because Zimbabwe has a new Constitution. Some of the provisions of the new Constitution came into effect on 22 May 2013 which is the publication day. Section 1 of Part 1 of the Sixth Schedule of the new Constitution provides that the ''first elections'' shall be held in terms of the new Constitution. The “first elections” is defined in s1 of Part 1 of the Sixth Schedule to mean: “(a) the first election for the office of the President under this Constitution; “(b) the first general election of members of Parliament under this constitution; “(c) the first elections of governing bodies of provincial and metropolitan councils and local authorities held after the publication day.” The elections in relation to which the applicant sought redress in terms of s24(1) of the former Constitution have become the “first elections” as they will be held after the publication day. The effect of the provisions of the new Constitution which came into operation together with express provisions of the Sixth Schedule on matters relating to the “first elections” are of greatest importance in the determination of the question raised by the application. The question for determination is whether the interpretation by the applicant of s58(1) of the former Constitution on the timing of the “first elections” which he wants the court to apply in deciding whether the first respondent (the President) has violated his fundamental right to the protection of the law is correct. In my view the clear and unambiguous provisions of s58(1) of the former Constitution as read with the other relevant sections admit of nothing other than their ordinary grammatical meaning. The applicant has turned the clear and unambiguous language of the provisions into a subject-matter of a question of interpretation which has unfortunately plunged the court into irreconcilable differences of opinion. I, however, refuse to have wool cast over the inner eye of my mind on this matter. The relevant provisions of the former constitution are these: “Section 58(1) Elections (1) A general election and elections for the members of the governing bodies of local authorities shall be held on such day or days within a period not exceeding four months after the issue of a proclamation dissolving Parliament under the section 63 (7) or, as the case may be, the dissolution of Parliament under section 63 (4) as the President may, by proclamation in the Gazette fix.” “63 Prorogation or dissolution (1) The President may at any time prorogue Parliament. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may at anytime dissolve the Parliament. (3) … (4) Parliament, unless sooner dissolved, shall last for five years, which period shall be deemed to commence on the day the person elected as President enters office in terms of section 28(5) after an election referred to in section 28(3)(a), and shall then stand dissolved: 14