Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 proposed legislation to enable it to rectify such defect in order to secure due conformity with the Constitution. Similarly, while it might be argued that the requirements of Standing Orders made under s 139 are primarily designed to regulate the procedural aspects of parliamentary business, I do not think that they are solely concerned with purely procedural matters. Insofar as they regulate the gazetting of Bills and the attendant dissemination of proposed legislation in pursuit of participatory democracy, they implicate the involvement of all political parties represented in Parliament as well as the general public, as is explicitly recognised in s 139(3). They therefore necessarily impact upon the constitutional obligations envisaged in s 141. In the premises, I am satisfied that the three constitutional questions raised for determination in this matter call for the adjudication of primarily political questions that intrude into the domain of Parliament and thus impinge upon the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. Accordingly, I take the view that these questions relate to the fulfilment of constitutional obligations that are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court within the contemplation of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution. Locus Standi of the Applicants The second respondent contests the legal standing of the applicants in instituting this application on the basis that they both participated in the process of DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS e-mail: veritas@mango.zw; website: www.veritaszim.net Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. 12