Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |165 The relief granted by the constitutional court was wide ranging; it was declaratory, mandatory and supervisory in nature. Regarding the President the court found that “... consistent with this constitutional injunction, an order will thus be made that the President’s failure to comply with the remedial action taken against him by the public protector is inconsistent with his obligations to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic; to comply with the remedial action taken by the public protector; and the duty to assist and protect the office of the public protector to ensure its independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness”.17 Regarding the National Assembly the court found that “... the failure by the National Assembly to hold the President accountable by ensuring that he complies with the remedial action taken against him, is inconsistent with its obligations to scrutinise and oversee executive action and to maintain oversight of the exercise of executive powers by the President. And in particular, to give urgent attention to or intervene by facilitating his compliance with the remedial action”.18 The order made by the court was definitive and effective because it had the following legal consequences; • It affirmed that the public protector’s remedial powers were legally binding. • It affirmed the constitutional courts mandate to declare conduct inconsistent with the constitution unlawful. • The supervisory powers of the constitutional court were invoked to ensure that the President pay back what he owed. • A structural interdict was imposed requiring that i) the national treasury report back to the court within 60 days with the amount to be repaid and ii) within 45 days thereafter the President must 17 Paragraph 103 18 Paragraph 104