The majority of these principles were ably summarized in the judgment of Manyindo DCJ, (as he then was),inMajor General David Tinyefuza Vs Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No.1 of 1996 as follows; “………I think it is now well established that the principles which govern the construction of statutes also apply to the construction of constitutional provisions. And so the widest construction possible in its contexts should be given according to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and each general word should be held to extend to all ancilliary and subsidiary matters. See Republic - vs – El- Menu [1969] EA 357 and Uganda – vs Kabaka’s Government [1965] EA 393. As was rightly pointed out by Mwenda, CJ. (as he then was) in El-Manu (Supra), in certain contexts a liberal interpretation of Constitutional provisions may be called for. Constitutional provisions should be given liberal construction, unfettered with technicalities because while the language of the Constitution does not change, the changing circumstances of a progressive society for which it was designed may give rise to new and fuller import to its meaning. A constitutional provision containing a fundamental right is a permanent provision intended to cater for all time to come and, therefore, while interpreting such a provision, the approach of the court should be dynamic progressive and liberal or flexible, keeping in view ideals of the people, socialeconomic and political-cultural values so as to extend the benefit of the same to the maximum possible. In other words, the role of the court should be to expand the scope of such a provision and not to extenuate it. Therefore the fundamental human rights ought to be construed broadly and liberally in favuor of those on whom the rights have been confirmed by the Constitution. “Emphasis mine)” In the case of Attorney Vs Momodou Jube (1984) AC 689 which was an appeal to the Privy council from the court of Appeal of Gambia Lord Diplock said at page 700:“ A Constitution and in particular that part of it which protects and entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the state are to be entitled is to be given generous and purposeful construction.” “The interpretation should be generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for the individuals the full benefit of the charters protection”see R – Vs – Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985 DLR 4th 321, 395 – 6th(Supreme Court of Canada per Dickson, J. In Unity Dow – vs – Attorney General of Botswana (1992) LRAC 623 it was stated that a generous construction means :“…………….that you must interpret the provisions of the Constitution in such a way as not to whittle down any of the rights and freedoms unless by very clear and unambiguous provisions such interpretation is compelling.” 26