101. Whether a limitation negates the most important components of the right in question, in this instance, the rights in sections 13, 20, 30(3) and 31(1) of the Constitution entails an examination of the actual meaning and components of the rights guaranteed in the aforementioned sections. From the detailed discussion of the contents of the rights in issue above, we find that the Pension Act and the Pension (Exemption) Order, do not negate the essential contents of the said rights. 102. Secondly, laws prescribing restrictions or limitations on rights must be reasonable. An illustration of the application of the reasonableness test appears in the case of JZU Tembo & Kate Kainja v Attorney General Civil Appeal Case Number 50 of 2003 where the High Court was considering the constitutionality of section 51 of the Constitution which disqualified a person convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty or moral turpitude from being a Member of Parliament. The Court held that the section justifiably limited one’s political rights because it had the legitimate aim of protecting the integrity of the National Assembly and that it was not too restrictive since it did not bar the disqualified person from engaging in other political activities. 103. In the case of Gwanda v The State (Constitutional Cause 5 of 2015) [2017] MWHC 23 (10 January 2017) the Court cited with approval R v Oakes which held that for a limitation to be reasonable several factors need to be considered. Firstly, one needs to look at the importance of the purpose or the objective of the limitation; secondly, examine the proportionality between the limitation and its purpose; thirdly, analyse if there are less restrictive means of achieving the purpose; and lastly, consider whether the limitation has managed to achieve the intended purpose. Page 37 of 45