21 S.C. 128\02 unconstitutional or, put differently, is a permissible derogation. I now turn to deal with the issue of whether the particular impugned sections go beyond the limit permissible in terms of the Constitution. ARE THE IMPUGNED SECTIONS OF THE ACT BEYOND THE RESTRICTIONS PERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION? I have concluded that in general terms legislation providing for regulation of the electronic media is constitutionally permissible. Indeed many constitutions, including the Zimbabwean Constitution, expressly permit derogation from the fundamental rights contained therein. However, such derogation or restriction has to meet certain criteria or requirement to bring it within the ambit of what is constitutional. The following are some of the criteria that a restriction has to satisfy for it to be constitutional. (a) the restriction has to be prescribed by law;16 (b) the restricting law must be foreseeable; (c) the restricting law must be subject to effective control;17 (d) the restricting law must not negate the essential of the right in question;18 16 In re Chikweane 1995 (1) ZLR 235 (S) Authokorale v Attorney-General supra, Perera v Attorney-General supra, State of Bihar v Misra AIR 1971 SC 1667 at 1675, Malundika v The People, Supreme Court of Zambia 95/95 (unreported); Pumbun v Attorney-General [1993] 2 LRC 317 18 S v Makwanyane & Anor 1995 (6) BCLR 665, New Pastriotic Party v Inspector General of the Police, supra 17