Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |175 the constitutional court makes an adverse finding against the President does not necessarily mean that the President will be impeached and, even if that were the case, there is no guarantee that the motion to impeach will be successful due to the reality of majority politics. As was discovered to the bitter disappointment of the DA party of South Africa, when it tried to impeach the president just days after the Nkandla judgment, the motion failed as they required 160 votes to pass, but lost by 243-133. The vote may have been political, and the ANC’s numerical advantage effectively doomed it but that doesn’t make it illegal. Although the Constitution provides that the National Assembly may remove the president if he commits a “serious violation of the Constitution,” it is the National Assembly which decides whether or not to do so; indeed similar to the Zimbabwe context. Recourse Against a Cabinet Minister Section 106 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides for a constitutional standard in respect of what Ministers are prohibited from doing; however, it does not in itself create offences. The section merely provides that Ministers are, for example, prohibited from enriching themselves or improperly benefiting other persons. Section 106 contains elements of criminal conduct and is aimed at curbing corruption, abuse of power and abuse of State resources. In the event of such constitutional violations by Ministers, recourse may be found through the ordinary courts of law either using the criminal justice system or the civil courts. The criminal justice system specifically provides for recourse to be taken against a public officer under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.34 The Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act35 Section 174 of the Act deals with criminal abuse of duty by public officers and states as follows; 34 [Chapter 9:23] of Act 23 of 2004 35 Section 174