Presumption of Constitutionality denotes that an Act of Parliament, law or statutory provision is

constitutional unless it is challenged and proven unconstitutional. All statutes or legislation are
presumed to be consistent with the Constitution until their constitutionality is duly declared
and a declaration of its invalidity is judicially pronounced by a competent court. In a scenario
where a statute comprises of two contrary meanings where as the one is constitutional and the
other unconstitutional, the legislature is taken to intend that meaning which is constitutional. In
the case of Tsopodzi and Ano-vs- minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs CCZ12/15
2015(1)ZLR(CCZ), the court held that section 22(1) of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11], was
unconstitutional following the proof that it was inconsistent with the Constitution. Section
22(1) of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] provided that a girl who had attained 16 years was
capable of contracting a valid marriage. Conversely, this Act was inconsistent with Section 78(1)
of the constitution of Zimbabwe which provided that every person who has attained the age of
eighteen years has the right to found a family. As a result the court came to a conclusion and
held that section 22(1) of the Marriage Act was unconstitutional thus it adopted the principle of
presumption of constitutionality. Henceforth the presumption of constitutionality is very
effective in interpreting statutory provisions.

Presumption of upholding international obligations basically underlies a sense that a statute

should not violate international law but rather it should be consistent with it. This principle
projects the essence of a statute in adhering to certain international obligations which the
constitution follows. Section 326 and 327 of the Zimbabwean Constitution recognizes
customary international law and international law thus all Acts should duly be in compliance
with the international law regulations or standards. The court should adopt a suitable
interpretation which is consistent with the international law as contrary to that opposing the
law. In the case of Tsopodzi and Ano-vs- minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs
CCZ12/15 2015(1)ZLR(CCZ), the court recognized an international obligation whereby the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Union Conventions on the Rights and
welfare of African Child were used to support the issue that the age of consent was eighteen
years thereby dismissing section 22(1) of the Marriage Act and making it unconstitutional.
Therefore in interpreting statutory provision, presumption in favor of upholding international
obligations is very crucial.