Judgment No. CCZ 10 /2015 3 Const. Application No. 8/2014 Uriri, the amicus curiae was allowed to briefly address the court. He emphasised the need for parties wishing to apply directly to the Constitutional Court, to do so only upon establishing a proper basis for such an approach. This would insulate the court against a potential flood of undeserving cases at the instance of parties who may be disgruntled at decisions of lower courts, including the Supreme Court. Even though this matter was not heard on the merits, I consider it necessary nevertheless to set out the backdrop to the order that the court issued. This necessitates a cursory look at some of the papers presented before the court. The applicant aptly summarised the background to this application as follows in its heads of argument; “1. On 28 January 2014 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the matter of Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Attorney General SC 1/2014. The judgment directed and ordered the Attorney general (as he then was) to issue a certificate Nolle Prosequi to Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd. Dissatisfied with the judgment the applicant approached the Constitutional Court for an order setting aside the Supreme Court judgment on the basis that same (sic) interferes with the independence of his office and as such it is ultra vires provisions of s 260 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.” Section 260 of the Constitution provides as follows:“260 Independence of Prosecutor General (1) Subject to this Constitution, the Prosecutor General(a) is independent and is not subject to the direction or control of anyone and (b) must exercise his or her functions impartially and without fear, favour, prejudice or bias. (2) The Prosecutor-General must formulate and publicly disclose the general principles by which he or she decides whether and how to institute criminal proceedings.”