J8 Indeed what I have is a “reference” As can be observed governs from rather provisions an a reading of the whole the originating process when protective than enshrined originating of Article 28, Clause an individual in Articles 11 process. seeks to enforce to 26, whereas (1) the Clause (2) relates to persons appearing before a Subordinate Court. As Counsel for the 1st Applicant to come such as the present ought back as MUMBUNA v. THE IRWIN v. THE PEOPLE pointed out, before (1993/1994) ZR as to how cases settled as far this Court was 66 and OLIVER JOHN 7 in which the Supreme Court ZR (1974) PEOPLE the issue approved of the procedure such as was adopted in the instant case. The by which procedure as to the proper State’s argument to bring the matter to the High Court under Article 28 (2) therefore falls away. the that Having decided proceed to consider 67 Section whether this before properly is matter of the Code Penal Court, I now contravenes the Constitution and, if so, if it ought to be struck off the statute books. (1) of Section 67 charged falls under the Division under Code Penal which 1 of Part II of the the Penal Applicants were which deals Code with offences against public order and reads: “67 (1) to cause public peace, fear publishes, any statement, writing or otherwise, likely who person Any and knowing alarm to the whether rumour public orally or or report which or to disturb or having reason to believe that such in is the