Applicant who was advisor to former Prime Minister and in that capacity benefited from a Government loan scheme by borrowing M500 000. 00 without interest from a bank. Parliamentarians and ministers equally benefiting from the scheme. Government featured as a guarantor for the payments of the loans.   Post change of Government in 2017 resulting from a passing of a motion of no confidence against the then Prime Minister and the outcome of the elections, the Applicant and other holders of political offices vacated their political offices.  A   substantial number of parliamentarians in the 9th Parliament also lost their membership of parliament following their defeat in the elections.  Resultantly, the borrowers became financially challenged to service the loans.  Some however, reassumed membership in the 10th Parliament with others even becoming ministers. A new Government discharged its status as a guarantor by introducing a policy for the borrowers to settle debts on the loans.  The policy decision resolved that Government would pay for the remaining debts of the borrowers who were parliamentarians while those of the Applicant and others would be settled through seizing of their gratuities to pay for their debts.Applicant lamented before the court that the decision was discriminatory on the undisputed narrated political grounds while Respondents maintained that it was a mere differentiation.  The court held:

1. The policy was unfairly discriminatory since it classified people whose basic and material commonality is that they are all borrowers of money from banks under the same scheme and with the same terms and condition and that being a member of parliament is contextually irrelevant to justify the measure;

2. The advantageous debt forgiveness accorded to the parliamentarians in contrast to the disadvantageous one given to the Applicant and others reinforces the unfairness of discrimination;

3. The Respondents failed to demonstrate that the decision was in pursuit of a legitimate goal to advance national interest let alone its proportionality towards that.  And, their explanation  that  it was intended to enhance freedom of parliamentarians to check and balance exercise of power by the Executive yet some of the beneficiaries are ministers and ex parliamentarians is rejected;

4. Consequently, the Applicant has proven that the Respondents violated his constitutional right of freedom from discrimination, right to equality and freedom from arbitrary seizure of property.