Judgment No. CCZ 11/15 5 Const. Application No. CCZ 28/11 the judiciary and promotes peace and stability (S v Mamabolo 2001 (2) SA 409 CC); (e) genuine, albeit ‘rigorous’ criticism of the judiciary is acceptable, as long as it stayed within the limits of reasonable courtesy and good faith 1 (f) he should not have been charged under s 182 (1) since his comment was also ‘debate’ on the proper role of the judiciary, that is, whether it is best to have an activist or a deferential judiciary, and finally, that (g) nothing was in any case established on the facts as set out by the State, which suggests there was any impairment of the dignity, reputation or authority of the court. The first respondent (“the respondent”) challenges all of the applicant’s arguments and submits that there were specific limitations to the right to freedom of expression provided in s 20 (2) (b) (iii) of the old Constitution. The purpose of the limitations, it is contended, was to maintain the independence and authority of the courts. The relevant provision read as follows:“20 Protection of Freedom of Expression (1) --(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be in contravention of subsection (1) to the extent that the law in question makes provision(a) --(b) for the purpose of (i) --(ii) --(iii)Maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or tribunals or the Senate or the House of Assembly (iv) --(v) ---“ 1 In re Chinamasa 2000(2) ZLR 322 (S) at 334 B-E