in this lecture we shall discuss the justiciability of the directive principles of this policy adjustability of the directive principles of state policy in other words that the the directive principles of state policy as contained in chapter 6 of the 1992 constitution are those provisions that can be justifiable in the court of law are those provisions provisions that can be enforceable in the court of law so without this class the disability of the directive principles of the policy the directive principles of this policy are contained in chapter 6 of the constitution of banner and chapter 6 begins from article 34 and it ends at article 41 now one would ask and wish to find out why a question has arisen as to whether the provisions in chapter 6 are enforceable or not in other words one may want to find out why is it that amongst all the other provisions in the constitution there's a question about whether the provisions in chapter 6 are enforceable we'll realize this in the next five minutes the controversy stands for the wording of article 34 of the constitution and the rationale for the inclusion of taxes in the constitution as explained by the committee of experts who made the first draft of the 1992 constitution so if you are familiar with the procedure and the steps that were taken for the drafting of the 1992 constitution and its adoption you realize that there was a first stage where a committee of experts were brought together and they prepared the first drafts of the 1992 constitution now after the committee of experts prepared their drafts they then had to forward it and then a consultative assembly was formed so the draft prepared by the committee of express was transmitted to the consultative assembly and they also did their own tax they put their own touch to the work that had been prepared by the committee of experts and then the consultative assembly then was given the power and that is what was ultimately prepared and given to the people of ghana to vote in the referendum and then we now have to adopt the output that was given by the consultative assembly so the first stage was with the committee of aspects and the controversy terms because the committee of experts they gave a rationale a rationale for including the directed principles of state policy in the constitution so in order to clearly explain why there's a controversy about whether the provinces contained in chapter 6 and enforceable or not i have to itemize and explain and give the rationale that was given by the committee of experts the committee of experts in their deaths in giving the rationale they expressly mentioned that their principles should be contained under the directive principles of the policy they should not off and by themselves be legally enforceable by in any court the people who prepare the draft that's what they are saying they are saying that the provisions contained in chapter 6 they should not off and by themselves be legally enforceable in any court they only mention that the court should however have regard to the set principles in interpreting any laws based upon them the committee of experts in giving the rational dimension that by tradition directive principles are not justiciable so it is the committee of experts who have given the rationale that by tradition they are not justice so the question is why then have they even included it in the constitution so i will now proceed to read paragraph 94 95-96 of the work of the committee of experts so that we'll see the rationale they had including the directive principles of state policy in the constitution as you would already know i have mentioned that they have already indicated that by tradition the directive principles of faith policy are not justifiable and that they should not off and by themselves illegally enforceable in any courts so why then are they putting it in the constitution so i'm now reading and quoting from the committee of experts and i quote the ncd reports speaks of the need to include in the constitution core principles around which national political social and economic life will revolve this is precisely what the directive principles of tea policy seek to do against this background of the achievements and feelings of our post-independent experience and our aspirations for the future as a people the principles attempts to set the stage for the annunciation of political civil and economic as well as social rights of our people they made theirs be regarded as spelling out in war strokes the spirit of conscience of the constitution the committee used chapter 4 of the 1979 constitution as a basis for its deliberations on the subjects of 95 by tradition directing principles are not justiciable by tradition directive principles are not justifiable even so there are at least two good reasons for including them in the constitution first directed principles enumerates a set of fundamental objectives which a people expect all bodies and persons that make or execute public policy to strive to achieve in the presence proposals one novelty is the explicit inclusion of political parties among the bodies expected to observe the principles the reason for this is that political parties significantly influence government policy a second justification for including directed principles in the constitution is that taken together they constitute in the long run a sort of barometer by which the people could measure the performance of their government in effect they provide goals for legislative programs and the guide for judicial interpretation program 96 on the basis of the foregoing considerations the committee proposes as follows semicolon the directed principles of kids policy are for the guidance of parliament the president the council of ministers political parties and other bodies and persons in making and applying public policy for the establishment of a just and free society the principles should not off and by themselves be legally enforceable by any cause i'll take that person again the principles should not off and by themselves be legally enforceable by any courts the court should however have regard to the set principles in interpreting any laws based on them the cause should however have regard to the same principles in interpreting any laws based on them so as you can see the rationale for the inclusion of the directive principles of the policy as explained by the committee of express is that they are only supposed to be one to enumerate a set of fundamental objectives which the people expect all buddhists that executes public policy to try to achieve and secondly it is there to serve as a barometer i wish the people could measure the performance of governments and they also mentioned that they are not supposed to be legally enforceable by themselves in any courts this is a rational given by the committee of experts but let us read up to 4 of the constitution and let us see what the purpose of the directive principles of tech policy as indicated in 1934 is what are they seeing until 34 weeks as fools cannot quote the director principles of tech policy contained in this chapter shall guide all citizens parliaments the president the judiciary the council of states cabinets little car parties and other bodies and persons in applying or interpreting this constitution or any other law and in taking and implementing any policy decisions for the establishment of a just and free society so as you can see article 34 of the constitution of ghana 1992 also mentions that the directive principles of tech policy shall guide all citizens parliament the president the judiciary the council of thieves he said it shall what guide so that all of them when they are taking and implementing any policy decisions for the establishment of a just and free society now what you will notice from article 34 of the constitution which begins chapter 6 of the constitution is that nowhere in chapter 6 nowhere nowhere at all in chapter 6 would you see any expression which indicates that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are not to be gestational nowhere in chapter 6 hasn't been stated the best we have in chapter 6 is articulative form which tells us that the directive principles of this policy shall die of citizens nowhere does it state that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are not supposed to be accessible or are not supposed to be legally enforceable in any court so the question that actually arises is that do we rely on the intention of the famous that can be gleaned from what the community of experts said that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are not supposed to be enforceable do we rely on that on what the committee of experts said or should we just limit ourselves to the context the text of the constitution that is should we limit ourselves to the four corners of the constitution in ascertaining whether the relations contained in chapter six are supposed to be enforceable or not now this question will be answered by three cases at least three cases at least two cases decided in the republic of ghana the first case would be new patriotic party this is attorney general new patriotic party versus attorney general reported in 1993 94 to governor reports at p35 what we all know as the 31st disney case and then we'll move on to new patriotic party versus attorney general reported in 1997 1998 one gunner reports at p378 what we know as the c barcase c by c ibe and then we shall come to the case of diana loto operators association and addis versus national lottery authority reported in 2007 2008 supreme court of ghana reports paid 108.88 and we go through these three cases we should be able to tell whether our courts are relying on what the committee of experts said that the provisions contained in chapter 6 should not be enforceable by themselves any courts or whether they will limit themselves to the texts of the constitution to say that nowhere in the constitution has it been said is not supposed to be enforceable so let us now begin with the first case of new patriotic party this is attending gender 1893 1994 two ghana reports at the 35 that is the first december case one of the judges who worked for the majority that's this is what he said about the directive principles of state policy and i quote i do not subscribe to the view that chapter 6 of the constitution is not justiciable it is first the whole the constitution as a whole is a justiciable document if any part of it is to be non-judiciable the constitution itself must say so i have not seen anything in chapter six or in the constitution generally which tells me that after sex is not justiciable the evidence to establish the non-justice ability must be internal to the constitution and not otherwise we cannot add words to the constitution in order to change its meaning the very tenor of chapter 6 of the constitution supports the view and the chapter is statistical as far as the judiciary is concerned i ask myself the question how do the principles guide the judiciary in applying or interpreting the constitution if not in the process of enforcing them then this is other goals i had to say as follows at page 59 of the reports in any case even if the debates in the consultative assembly may charitably be interpreted as exhibiting some intention to make the directive principles non-justiciable that intention was not carried into the constitution 1992 the debates themselves are inadmissible to contradict the language of the constitution justice is saying in the case of new patriotic party visa attorney general that first zimbabwe is that the whole constitution it's itself a justiciable document and so if any part of it is supposed to be non-dissectionable then it is the constitution itself that's must take stepson in a sense he hasn't seen anything contained in chapter 6 that makes the provision not justiciable then for he he will recognize that the whole of the confusion is justiciable and therefore chapter 6 is also justified and it goes ahead to say that if anybody wants to make any arguments that any portion of the constitution is non-disciple he says the evidence to establish the non-justice ability must be internal to the constitution and not otherwise so since he hasn't seen anywhere in the context of the constitution saying that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are non-deceased arguments so in the new patriotic party versus attending general case 93 93-94 that defends the marquis we are told that by the whole for the majority that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are decisions now it is important to mention that the whole point about whether they are justiciable or not arose in this case because the mpp encoded their case on some provisions in chapter 6 of the constitution they argued on article 34 as well as they argue mainly based on article 35 1 and 41 f 42 35 1 e41 one everywhere part of the articles that they uncovered their case on in the thirty-five zero keys you will notice that article 351 says that ghana shall be a democratic state dedicated to the realization of freedom and justice and accordingly sovereignty resides in the people of ghana from whom the government derives all its powers and authority through the constitution that is exclusive 35 and then article 41b says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to uphold and defend this constitution and the law so since they had brought an argument that year to the supreme court arguing that the intended celebration of the defense remember as a national holiday was in conflict with the letter and spirit of the 1992 constitution they were arguing that at september that says government's at the moment if you're going for the basically task it is in conflict with the subject of five and 41 bc that every citizen shall uphold and defend the constitution so you can see that 35 unfortunate forms part of the articles that the mpp encode their keystone and that is why the attorney general argued that those articles that have encoded the case on and chapter 6 of the constitution and that they are not supposed to be legally enforceable another day saying that he hasn't seen anywhere in the constitution saying that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are supposed to be non-justiciable for him the whole constitution is a justiciable document and if any portion of it is not to be justiciable it must be internal in the constitution and it must be external to it like they are seen in the community of experts with so that they just said that the provisions contained in chapter six are just as general but what about the minority in the case of new patriarchy party and attending the north and the federalism market what is the minority to see now justice banff who was part of the minority she indicated that in opinion [Music] the directive principles of tip policy are not justiciable so through the judges rule for the minority banford adult end that is urban they indicated that the provisions contained in chapter six are not justificable and this is what justice banford abu says and i quote in our opinion the directive principles of the policy are not justificable and the plaintiff has no cause of action based on these articles those articles were included in the constitution for the guidance of all citizens parliament the president judiciary the council of kids the cabinets political parties or other persons and bodies in applying or interpreting the constitution or any other law in taking and implementing any policy decisions for the cons for the establishment of a just and free society the judiciary is to be guided while interpreting the constitution by only the specific provisions under chapter 6. now one legal scholar peter attupari in this literally were titled reconcilings issue economic rights and directives and directive principles with a fundamental law of reason in ghana and nigeria reconciling socio-economic rights and directed principles with a fundamental law of reason in ghana and nigeria he has made a very interesting critique of how the directed principles of the policy was treated in the new patriotic party and attending the northeast that the fed is in my case as noted serious an interesting critique about it that's what a little other says now according to the leonard offer when you read the full case of new patriarchy party and attending general the defense in my case it appears that there's no clear-cut majority especially on the issue of the political quest induction because red what's adapted about the fact that the provisions contained in chapter six are not are gestational but this says that the provisions contained in chinese are decisions but it appears that other justices who were for the majority failed to specifically address the issue of the enforceability of the directive principles of the policy again the minority we are saying that banff what abduct and then just other day we have an addict on the majority and then we have but for the adult on the minority so his view is that it is unclear whether the position taken by other day that the provisions contained in chapter 6 uh enforceable it is unclear whether that view was specifically endorsed by the other justices because they failed to specifically address that particular issue about the enforceability or otherwise of the directed principle of the policy so he says also that it's also unclear what that the minority is you captured by justice because you see all the other justices with their own governments i vote for majority forward for minority so if one of the majority has expertly given his stance about the enforceability of the directive principles i took paris saying that it is unclear whether the under that narcissist who failed to specifically address the issue it is unclear whether they also endorse the position of other or not and same for the minority it's also unclear whether the other justices for people who vote for the minority whether they also endorse justice by what adults blame says as follows that it is unclear whether the majority of the supreme court subscribed to the pronouncement of justice adam that directed principles are necessary or if justice banford others rebuttal of that claim was endorsed by the other justices the good ends now two party numbers i have to say as follows and i quote once again that with justice at that day and justice banford adult acting alone in advancing their respective views the case did not reach a determination of whether the directed principles are justiciable so you realize that in the new patriotic party in attendance there were how many justices nine justices five vote for majority four vote for minority a two paris saying that for the majority only even though all five votes their respective decisions only expressly and specifically dealt with the issue of directive principles of the policy so he says that it is unclear whether that person that this is that expression that he gave whether his use has been endorsed by the other majority that is and same thing for the minority the same justice bank also gave her views what are those same views have been endorsed by a minority so he says in his article and i quote once again that went just at that day and justice bamford adult alone acting in advancing their respective views the case did not reach a determination whether the director's principles are justifiable so at least now we know that in the new petroleum party and attending our case that is that fed is in my case we know that and then who vote for the majority was part of the majority he took the view that the provisions contained in chapter six are justice chapel because the whole constitution is a decisionable document and we've seen one gathering over the minority justice banford ado saying that are not supposed to be justice now let's move on to the next case of new patriotic party versus attorney general 1997 1998 vanguard law reports at p378 [Music] what you know called the seaback case in this case the supreme court revisited the issue of the justiciability of directive principles of the policy and they clarified the law in this case the plaintiff a political party registered as a body corporate that is the new patriotic party they invoked the original jurisdiction of the supreme court undertook into an article 130 of the prosecution and they were seeking for a declaration that's the council of indigenous business association law so this is where we get a cba form council of indigenous business association law so cibbe that the council of indigenous business associations law 1993 pns law 312 was inconsistent with and a contravention of articles 21 1 e 35 plus 1 and 37 clause 2 a and 3 of the 1992 constitution and therefore void take note of the articles that they have uncalled that occasion article 21 1e 35 clause 1 27 clause 2 a and 3 of the 1992 constitution and consequently void now this in order to put this case in the proper perspective it is important that i briefly set out the facts for you now in this case concerned indigenous businesses if you read the law you will see that it's also applied to ghana national association of garages national drinking bar operators association banner head dresses and beauticians association ghana national talents and death makers association ghana cooperative baker's association federation of ghana jewelers national association of refrigeration mechanics national association of traditional helix federation of markets women ghana national traditional cages association now upset now section 4 of the council of indigenous business association law made it a requirement that all of these associations and bodies i have mentioned immediately recommend that they must register with the council of indigenous business association that they must veto receiver so they have made it to you coming that all of these organizations are mentioned the national association of garages national drinking bar of freedom association national health bases and beauty sales association and all the like federation of banana jewelers foundational market to me all of them must go and register with siba the council of indigenous business association that's number one and number two is that siba was more or less supposed to be controlled or administered by people such as representatives of each of the associations a representative of the ministry of social warfare the executive secretary and national treasurer who shall all be appointed by the minister of social welfare in consultation with the council so you see there's a government component over there because they are going to be composed of representatives of the ten associations representative of the ministry of social warfare and the executive secretary and national treasure who are bothered by this minister minister of states in consultation with the council and the council of indigenous business association law was given the power to monitor the operations of all of these associations that is the national backend association association this council will be monitoring them so there are two principal reasons why the mpp bought this actually before the supreme court one was that that provision in section four the military requirements that all of those associations must mandatory register with the council of indigenous business association law it was an affordable their freedom of association has been guaranteed under article 21 one e of the constitution twenty one one plus e of the constitution which means that we shall all have our freedom of association which are include freedom to fund or join trade unions or other associations national or international for the protection of their interests 21-1 e he didn't end it the mpp also uncovered their case on article 13 37 plus two a and three of the 1992 constitution and this is what article 37 was two a and three says another nice energy constitution thirty-seven twelve two a the state shall enact appropriate laws to assure a the enjoyment of rights of effective participation in development processes including rights of people to form their own associations free from state interference and to use them to promote and protect their interest in relation to development processes rights of access to agencies and officials of the state necessary in order to realize effective participation in development processes freedom to form organizations to engage in self-help and income generating products and freedom to raise funds to support these activities and clause 3 of us 37 during the desert of the obligations seated in close two of this article the states shall be guided by international human rights instruments which recognize and apply particular categories of basic human rights to development processes so you can see that article 21 one e guarantees freedom of association 21-1 he says shall include freedom to form or to join trade unions freedom to form or to gain trade unions national or international for the protection of their interest freedom to join or to form and as governor seven also has language in the a people's rights to form their own associations free from state interference free from state interference so you see the zipper one made it a mandatory requirement that all of those associations must come and register with them all of those organizations mr mcconnell number one and number two the minister you remember was given the power to monitor monitor by appointing people to monitor the activities of these unions so the end people are saying that one if you are saying that we should mandate you to come and join it's an affirm to our freedom of association guaranteed underscore 21 and 37 of the constitution and further to that since the minister is giving the right to monitor monitoring and amount to interference in the activities of these bodies and 37 plus 2 says that people should have the freedom to inform their own associations free from state interference if it's free from this interference what is the minister during the monitoring the activities of baker's association and tell us of ghana what is he doing there that is why mpvp unquote that case on article 21 one e and 37 but remember article 37 falls within chapter 6 of the 1992 constitution and so of course an objection was raised that the provisions contained in charter says are not supposed to be enforceable you understand because you have uncle located on article 21 and 37 but they are attacking the 37 aspects that that provision you are referring to is supposed to be known justiciable and this is the case of new patriotic party so how did the courts address the issue of the directed principles of state policy now in the siba case the supreme court attacked the supreme court in the case of new patriotic party business attacking norse ibaki's are dashed that's the directed principles of the policy are not justiciable are not that stationary but each of the guys who work for the majority they all took an interesting position so visitors of the daddies who were for the majority the first year president is ampiya and prjc and this is what ampere jsc said i paid 410 of the reports and i quote i do not think it is the intention of the framers of the constitution 1992 that these provisions and data sex are to be enforced by court action the directive principles of the policy are not justiciable by themselves in the instant case the right with the plaintiffs to protect by this action is contained in article 21 one e of the constitution which comes under chapter five the fundamental human rights and freedoms adjudication on that issue would have to be targeted by the directive principles of the policy so amperage is saying that the provisions contained in chapter 6 cannot be enforced by what action that they are not justiciable by themselves you can't go to court and go and seek to enforce them but he went ahead to say that the action before the court was about enforcing article 21 which was in chapter five and the fundamental human rights that one they are bound to enforce but when they want to enforce that one they can be guided by chapter 6 of the constitution so note that ampere ds is saying that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are not enforceable by themselves so far akufu jnc who also wrote a concurrent opinion for the majority also expressly took the view and held that the directive principles of ted policy off and by themselves are not supposed to be legally enforceable and this is what she also said at page 461 of the report views are very interesting very straight to the point and i would entreat you to pay rap attention to the views of suffolk gsc in the case of new petroleum party and attorney general seabace and i'm quoted clearly therefore the principle serves as the ultimate litmus paper for testing the constitutional propriety or legality of every enactment or the conduct of every person in ghana as far as the courts are concerned the principles are intended to serve as an aid to the construction or interpretation of the constitution 1992 and all other laws thus when an action is brought under article to one of the constitution 1992 this court in determining the issue may fall upon the principles as an aid and guide this does not in any way denote the principles to a secondary position relative to the other provisions of the constitution to the contrary they constitute the golden waste that has to be perceptible in every aspect of the social economic and political actions of all citizens parliament the president the judiciary the council office the cabinets political parties and other bodies and persons as the focal reference points in the interpretation of any law or in the determination of the constitutionality of any law or action of any person the final determinant is whether the spirit of the constitution as encapsulated in by the principles has been fulfilled why it is intended that specific principles are to be justiciable they have been specifically stipulated in other parts of the constitution as subparented articles again taking that part again where it is intended that specific principles are to be justiciable they have been specifically stipulated in other parts of the constitution as substantive articles thus for example the fostering of the right to own property freedom of association the prohibition of discrimination declared in the directive principles are also made enforceable by specific guarantees contained in other provisions in the constitution good end let me explain this question before i read further so for example all she's saying is that there are some provisions contained in chapter 6 of the constitution and they have been replicated in other portions of the constitution as an affordable right and according to it it is because the lawmaker intends that those provinces will be enforceable that is why they have been replicated so as we have seen in this case under active 37 we saw things about freedom to form and join associations now that article 37 is under chapter 6 but that same right to form associations has been guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution so so far saying that there are provisions in chapter six that are not enforceable in fact the whole of the six are not enforceable by themselves but she's saying that there are some provisions in chapter six that's because the lawmakers want them to be enforceable they have been replicated in other portions of the constitution like the right to own property now i go ahead and read in dictum also fakufu jse in the zebra case and then she concludes our photos that was aptly stated by the honorable attorney general in his million submissions on behalf of the defendants the directive principles of state policy present a mixed back of justiciable and non-justiciable issues it is therefore my opinion that as with the whole of chapter 6 of the constitution 1992 article 35 verse 1 37 clause 2 and 3 are not off and by themselves justice fool stop and the quote ends she's saying that as with the word of the concept of the constitution that those provisions contain interfaces they are not off and by themselves justicial popular gsc so far js all who wrote concurring opinions for the majority have openly found that the provisions contained in chapter 6 are not justiciable justice atul also wrote for the majority and this is what yoda said about the dietary principles of policy and i quote on the issue as to the justiciability of the directive principles of death policy in chapter 6 of the constitution i agree with the views of charles haynes from benjamin js and open for adult jsc a new patriotic party and attending general referring to the text in my case that they are not justiciable but indicate the spirit or conscience of the constitution 1992 and provide goals for legislative reforms and the guide for judicial interpretation the words of article 34 was one of the constitution make it clear that they only come into guide when one is applying or interpreting the constitution justice atogoba who also wrote for the majority in the siba case says that the probations contained in chapter six are not of themselves justice level so we've seen writing for the majority he says they are not justiciable he even goes ahead to liking them to near rules of construction then we have to fight for dse who says that the provisions contained in chapter six are not associable we have amperage saying that they are not justifiable and then again justice banford abu also was in the 35th december case and over there she was in the minority and you know her views already and over there she said that the diet principles of the policy they were not gestational that those were her views in the first zemba case and she was in the minority in the siba case she is in the majority and this is what the other says so this is what she said about the directive principle of the policy and i quote that there are particular instances where some provisions of the directing principles form an integral part of some of the enforceable rights because either they qualify them or can be held to be right in themselves in both instances they are of themselves justiciable also why those principles are read in conjunction with other enforceable provisions of the constitution by reason of the fact that the courts are mandated to apply them they are gestational further when any provision under chapter 6 dealing with the directive principles can be interpreted to mean the creation of a legal rights i.e a guaranteed fundamental human rights as was done in article 37 close to a regarding the freedom to some associations they become justiciable and protected by the constitution quote ends so what justice branford adult is saying is that well there are some instances whereby the provisions contained in chapter 6 they shall form an integral part of some other enforceable rights in the constitution in those instances they are justiciable again that there may be instances whereby when you read the provisions in other six in conjunction of other enforceable provisions of the constitution and for example as we have seen article 37 regarding the freedom form of associations when you read it in conjunction with article 21 1 e they all talk about freedom of association and as for article 21 in default under fundamental human rights so the court is obliged to apply them so she's saying that one sub provisions in the basics are read in conjunction with other enforceable provisions by reason of the fact that the courts are mandated to apply some other provisions then we can say that they are also enforceable and i should go back to say that where there's any provision in chapter six that if you read it it will mean the creation of a legal right then they'll also become justiciable and enforceable by the constitution so four people have written for the majority in all of the in the civil case now what i see under all of them is this they all recognize that there are some convictions in data sets which are not enforceable that's why they say that they off they are of them by themselves not enforceable but they all recognize that there is a possibility that a provision may be in chapter six but when you read that one in line with another provision of the constitution it may be legally enforceable and in that instance it could be deficient so we have to fight for jfc for the majority ampere jsc for the majority to google gsc for the majority we have also bound from other gsc for the majority recognize that the provisions in of themselves are not enforceable but when you can read it in line with another provision that creates a right that is enforceable that you can say it's impossible online is that all the judges recognize that they have they are often themselves not justiciable but there's a possibility of them being enforceable especially if you read the provisions in number six in line with another provision of the constitution even so far 21st is in my case all of them new patriotic party and attorney general says first december case and the second case is new political party and attending universities we are going to the final case and i hope that this will clarify the issues to make it very clear to you on the position of directed principles of policy in ghana and in the case of dharma lotus operators association and others vs national lottery authority 2007-2008 supreme court of banana reports atheist 108.88 is in this case there was also a question about what are the provisions contained in chapter 6 whether they were justiciable or not that says that the man who wrote for the majority he noted that the starting point of analysis should always be that all provisions in the constitution are justiciable unless there are strong indications to the contrary in the text or context of the constitution this is what that basis and i could there may be particular provisions in chapter 6 which do not lend themselves to enforcement by courts the very nature of such a particular provision would rebut the presumption of disability in relation to it in the absence of a demonstration that a particular provision does not lend itself to enforcement by courts however the enforcement by this court of the obligations imposed in chapter 6 should be insisted upon and would be a way of deepening our democracy and the liberty and the law that it ensues this question will need to be flexible and imaginative in determining how the provisions of chapter 6 actually enforceable the relevant question i'm quoting once again is that there may be particular provisions in chapter 6 which do not lend themselves to enforcement of this courts the very nature of such a particular provision would reflect the presumption of the accessibility in relation to it now there appears to be some common ground as far as the justiciability of the directed principles are concerned because that's a bar is saying that there is a presumption of disability but our presumption can be reported it means that if there is a presumption of justice ability that would be the starting point that because this is in the constitution let us presume that it is going to be distinctionable then you quickly ask that there can be instances whereby the provisions will not lend themselves to enforcement by a court in such instances the presumption would have been rebutted and therefore that provision would not be just a shallow it means that the bank also recognizes in the lottery's case that there may be some provisions in chapter 6 which will be enforceable and in those instances the presumption of the disability will apply and there may be some provisions inside the 62 which will also not be in such instances the presumption would have been reported then it appears that that the mass provision is also in line with what we have in the super case and personally what justice manfrotto said that there may be some provisions which will not lend themselves to the enforcement by imports would have also recognized that there are some particular instances that if you are able to read the provisional data6 in line with another provision of the constitution then it becomes enforceable in other words if you can't do it if you can't read a probation in the past 6 with another provision in the confusion to make it enforceable let's not be enforceable so it means that there appears to be a common ground now as far as the civic case and the lottery's case is concerned they all recognize that there may be some probations in that may be enforceable especially if you can read the provision number six in conjunction with another provision in the constitution creating an enforceable rights but if you cannot read it in conjunction with another provision of the constitution which is creating an enforceable right or that the provision interprets itself it's not creating a legal right then it's not going to be enforceable so we have now we cannot conclude our discussion on the directed principles of this policy here that in the 31st zimbabwe case we are told by the big that the whole confusion is the disciple document and therefore that says it's supposed to be enforceable then we come to the zebra case where we see what the judges all said about the fact that the fact that chapter 6 in and of itself is not supposed to be justiciable unless you can read it in conjunction with another portion of the constitution and then we have seen now the lottery's case that says that the starting point should be a presumption of justice ability our presumption has been rebutted this is where we shall end our lecture on the enforceability of the directive principles of state policy thank you