Judgment No. CCZ 10/2018 Const. Application No. CCZ 80/2016 The first respondent (the President) filed an opposing affidavit deposed to by the Minister. In that affidavit, the President abides by the second respondent’s averments in its notice of opposition. The second respondent (Parliament) is opposed to the relief sought by the applicants. In its affidavit deposed to by the Speaker, it is averred that on 28 June 2016, at the second reading stage, the National Assembly resolved that the text of the impugned Bill be replaced with a new text incorporating amendments which addressed various issues raised by the PLC concerning the initial text of the Bill. The new text is the basis on which the PLC gave its non-adverse report on the Bill. The motion agreed by the National Assembly was taken in accordance with Standing Order 134(1) which allows waiver of the requirement to publish every Bill fourteen days before it is introduced in Parliament. The Speaker avers that, following this resolution, the first applicant raised objections to the motion and called for a division, but lost dismally by 134 to 46 votes. Accordingly, having requested a division and participated in the voting process, the applicants abandoned their right to challenge the decision adopted by the National Assembly to replace the Bill with a new text as requested by the Minister. Furthermore, at the third reading stage, the applicants and others had walked out of the House. By so abandoning their rights, they have no locus standi before this Court because they participated in the enactment of the Act but then wrongfully walked out of the House. 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. 4