Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 enacting the impugned Bill. They had called for a division on the Bill in the National Assembly and had lost that vote. Thus, so it is argued, the decision that they seek to overturn is also their decision and they cannot challenge their own process. They therefore have no standing to attack legislation that they themselves were involved in passing. In the Doctors for Life case (supra), at para 218, Ncgobo J recognised the need to find a proper balance between avoiding improper intrusions into the domain of Parliament and ensuring that constitutional provisions are sufficiently justiciable so as not to be rendered nugatory. The latter consideration, in my view, behoves this Court to adopt a liberal and generous approach to locus standi in matters involving constitutional rights and obligations. This is so notwithstanding the constitutional and statutory independence enjoyed by Parliament in the control of its own affairs. See Smith v Mutasa N.O. & Anor 1989 (3) ZLR 183 (SC) at 208 & 209. See also Mudzuru & Anor v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs N.O. & Ors CCZ 12/2015, at pp. 13-15, where this Court, per Malaba DCJ (as he then was), eschewed the narrow traditional conception of locus standi in favour of a broad and generous approach to standing in constitutional matters. In casu, both applicants are not only citizens of Zimbabwe but also members of Parliament. They have a general right, qua citizens, to be involved in the proceedings of Parliament. They also have a specific and special right, qua members of Parliament, to ensure that parliamentary procedures are duly adhered to and that 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. 13