Bwana @Mpenzi, I respect your sentiments, and yes, the errors are definitely tardy. I gather your issue is not whether the errors arose out of misspelling/ misnumbering; but how the constitution will be interpreted. Just two points:
Point One:Article 259 (3) Construing this Constitution: Every provision of this Constitution shall be construed according to the doctrine of interpretation that the law is always speaking
This clause explains the judiciary should interpret the law in a dynamic/ developmentalist/ living approach. The approach of the new constitution enlarges the interpretive arena to include broader historical events
including original intent and "how meaning has evolved."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent
Point Two:The phrase 'TO give effect' appears five times in the proposed constitution;
4 times in relation to Parliament which can enact laws
1 time in relation to Commission of Revenue Allocation which recommends laws for equitable sharing of national revenue
But in Article 20 in relation to Courts which do not create laws, it says (a)'DOES NOT give effect'; and immediately after says (b)court shall enforce rights and freedoms. So the court may only apply/enforce but not develop the law to the extent that they grant a new right.
In closing @Mpenzi,
none of the misnumbered/'missing' clauses are refered to anywhere else in the constitution anyway; apart from Article 103 clause(1)e[i] which refers to 'missing' clause(2). Interestingly when you come to misnumbered clause(3), it points backwards to clause(1)e making interpretation possible.
So I still respect those who vote NO. But I would suggest reason should be for more that just the clerical errors - even the US constitution has them.