36 Judgment No. CCZ 2/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 86/15 The Legislature had the substantive power to act retrospectively. The public interest in the effectiveness of the legislative scheme clearly permitted the elimination of pre-existing evils which pointed to the very need for the legislation. The continued existence of the social evils of termination of employment on notice at the initiative of the employer without compensation to the employee for loss of employment would impair the effectiveness of the statutory scheme. See Benner v Canada (Secretary of State) [1997] 1 SCR 358. Ms Munyoro was on strong ground when she argued that the Legislature had to relate the retrospective application of the financial obligation to the mischief that gave rise to the need for enactment of the legislation. The unprecedented termination of large numbers of employees by employers on notice on the authority of a judgment they took to be a windfall had no substantial equity in it. The statute was not conceived and passed in a vacuum. It had a rational basis in the objective circumstances which would have caused any reasonable Legislature to enact such a law to remedy the situation. The welfare and fairness in the treatment of the employees whose contracts were terminated on notice following the Zuva Petroleum judgment were matters of public concern. Fairness and justice could only be extended to the employees whose contracts were terminated on notice following the Zuva Petroleum judgment through the retrospective application of the legislation which imposed on any employer who terminated a contract of employment on notice an obligation to pay the employee whose contract was terminated on notice the minimum retrenchment package calculated by reference to the length of service.