73 S.C. 128\02 For the reasons which I set out when I considered the applicant’s locus standi in respect of ss 8(1) and 8(2), I am satisfied that the applicant has the locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of s 8(5). In addition, the fact that in its founding affidavit the applicant did not state that it has less than the required minimum of ten shareholders is not fatal. That is so because even if it has ten or more shareholders, s 8(5) precludes it from reducing that number to less than ten for whatever reason, even if such a move might be absolutely necessary for the company’s survival. In that event the applicant might be compelled to give up private broadcasting. In the circumstances, the only issue left for consideration is whether s 8(5) is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The legislative objective in respect of this provision is set out by the second respondent as follows:“The frequency spectrum is a finite resource, which is owned by all Zimbabweans. Indeed, all Zimbabweans must have the opportunity to participate in the utilisation, control and ownership of their resource. Restricting the amount of equity that may be owned by one shareholder is one way of ensuring that as many Zimbabweans as possible participate in the use of their product.” I now wish to apply the three-part test set out in Nyambirai’s case, supra. Is the legislative objective sufficiently important to justify a restriction on the freedom of expression?