JUDGMENT
Motion invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 132 for an order of certiorari to issue up to the High Court (Criminal Division 3) to quash the decision of the High Court which purported to interpret Article 3(3) instead of a referral to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Applicant alleges that the charges preferred against him are inconsistent with Article 3(3), Article 19(11) and 21 (1) (a) & (b).
The question before the High Court was whether Section 182 of Act 29 is inconsistent with Article 3(3). It became apparent that the Applicant and the State had put rival meanings on Article 3(3). While the Applicant holds the view that Article 3(3) prohibits both violent means and unlawful means to overthrow the state, the State believes it prohibits only violent means used. Unless the Court interprets it otherwise, that the Applicant contends conduct which is either violent or unlawful is prohibited. That section 182 of Act 29 which also prohibits…