Judgment No CCZ 8/16 15 Const. Application No CCZ 48/15 Evidence Amendment Act, 1997, shall be that the person so sentenced shall remain imprisoned for the rest of his life.” The first point to be made is that the constitutionality of this provision has not been challenged in casu. This is because the applicant himself was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1995, before the promulgation and commencement of s 344A. As is quite correctly accepted by both counsel, this provision cannot be applied with retrospective effect to the applicant and, therefore, it has no direct bearing on his fundamental rights. The second point is that the provision is expressly made “subject to any other law”. That being so, its constitutionality may well be saved and remain intact by virtue of such other law which applies or which is interpreted to apply so as to override or negate its explicit import and effect, viz. that life means for life. Apart from these obiter observations, the conclusion that I have arrived at in relation to the applicant’s case does not specifically apply to the constitutionality of s 344A. Nevertheless, I would simply add that, if and when the question should arise for determination, the same conclusion would probably be inescapable. Equal Protection and Benefit of the Law Section 56(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to equality and equal protection in the following terms: “All persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.” The remaining provisions of s 56 pertain to gender equality and the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on specified grounds that are irrelevant to