160 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal (b) act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests; or (c) use their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person.” The report was submitted not only to the President, but also to the National Assembly with the intention that the National Assembly would facilitate compliance with the remedial action in line with its constitutional obligations to hold the President accountable. The National Assembly responded to the report of the public protector by setting up two ad hoc committees to examine the report as well to examine a further report compiled by the Minister of Police which essentially exonerated the President from any wrong doing. The National Assembly proceeded to endorse the report by the Minister exonerating the President from any liability which led to its resolve to absolve the President of all liability. Consequently, the President did not comply with the remedial action taken by the public protector. Dissatisfied with the resolution of the National Assembly, members of Parliament −specifically the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) −launched an application with the constitutional court to seek direct access to it concerning whether the failure to comply with the remedial action set out in the public protector’s report constituted a breach of the constitutional duties by the National Assembly and the President. The public protector also took part in the applications in order to defend her powers and argue on their ambit. The public protector and both applicants sought clarity from the court on the nature and extent of the power to take remedial action that the public protector was granted under s 182 (1) (c) which prescribes the functions and powers of the public protector.