5 “Taking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 137 as a whole, I would state thus: it embraces references and petitions whose resolution depend either on the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution or on determination of a question on inconsistence with, or contravention of, a provision of the Constitution. ” There is also the view that it is within the jurisdiction of all courts in the land to give meaning to the provisions of the Constitution and to enforce its provisions. In Attorney General v Tinyefuza (supra) Kanyeihamba, JSC, expressed it in the following terms: 10 15 20 “The marginal note to Article 137 states that it is an Article which deals with questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. In my opinion, there is a big difference between applying and enforcing the provisions of the Constitution and interpreting it. Whereas any court of law and tribunals with competent jurisdiction may be moved by litigants in ordinary suits, applications or motions to hear complaints and determine the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and other laws, under Article 137 only the Court of Appeal sitting as the Constitutional Court may be moved to interpret the Constitution with a right of appeal to this Court as the appellate court of last resort.” If that is the meaning of Article 137 (1) what then is the meaning of clause 3 (b) thereof? Mulenga, JSC, in the same case gave it the following meaning: 25 30 35 “By giving the ordinary and natural meaning to the wording in the two clauses it is evident that under clause (3) the Constitutional Court is empowered to, and may “interpret” provisions of an Act of Parliament or any other law in order to determine whether such Act or other law is inconsistent with some provision of the Constitution even if the latter is so clear that there is “no question as to its interpretation. ” Similarly under paragraph (b) the court is empowered and may access, analyse or evaluate the import of an Act or omission by any person in order to determine whether such act or omission is in contravention of a provision of the constitution, without having to interpret or give meaning to that provision. In my considered opinion therefore, the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to be exercised over causes of action under Clause (3) is broader than interpretation ofprovisions of the Constitution in the narrow sense of “giving meaning to words and expressions” in the Constitution.” {Emphasis in bold characters was supplied} 11