5 HH 270-18 HC 1718/18 among the relevant values are supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law and good governance. It was also contended that the first respondent brought the constitutional institution of traditional leadership into disrepute contrary to the provisions of [Chapter 15] of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.” The applicant further submitted that the violation of the constitution that the applicant complains of did not only occur at the time that the first respondent made the offending remarks. The violation of the Constitution is a continuing Act; “I also contend that the violation of the Constitution that the applicant complaints of did not only occur on the day at the time that the first respondent made the offending remarks. The violation of the Constitution is a continuing act. For as long as retraction or withdrawal of the statement is not made, or some other remedial action is taken, the violation of the Constitution continue to happen. Respect for the letter, spirit and values of the Constitution is a nonnegotiable. It is an imperative.” (See paragraph 33 of the Founding Affidavit) LOCUS STANDI IN JUDICIO This court was satisfied, after considering the applicants heads of argument and submissions and a perusal of the Trust Deed of the applicant that the applicant had locus standi to institute the current proceedings. This court is satisfied that the applicant has locus standi in its own interest and in the public interest. This court agrees that s 85 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe has widened the class of persons who can approach the court alleging a breach of rights enshrined in the Constitution. This court accepts that “the applicant has shown that “as a think tank whose mandate includes matters of elections, governance and democracy, the unconstitutional remarks made by the first respondent directly affect it even though they were not directed at the applicant per se.” Also see the remarks of MALABA J in Loveness Mudzuru & Ruvimbo Tsopodzi v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs N.O & Ors at page 14 where he stated: “With respect to the objective of liberating the ‘narrow traditional conception of standing’ and adopting a ‘broad and generous approach to standing’ in constitutionally guaranteed human rights litigation, under the new s 85 (1) where he stated: ‘The object of s 85 (1) of the Constitution is to ensure that cases of infringement of fundamental rights which adversely affect different interests covered by each rule of standing are brought to the attention of a court for redress. The object is to overcome the formal defects in the legal system so as to guarantee real and substantial justice to the masses, particularly the poor, marginalized and deprived sections of society. The fundamental principles is that every