12 5. S.C. 128\02 ratified treaties should provide a legitimate guide in interpreting constitutional provisions.7 This Court has had occasion to consider what meaning is to be ascribed to section 20 of the Constitution. The court concluded that section 20 of the Constitution has to be interpreted using the broad principles set out above. Mr de Bourbon did not seek to argue this point strenuously. Indeed He took the view that the issue of what meaning is to be ascribed to section 20 of the Constitution has already been determined by this Court on the basis that freedom of expression extends to corporate persons and includes freedom of the press and that any restriction on the means of communication including the press abridges freedom of expression conferred by section 20 of the Constitution. The case of Retrofit v Posts and Telecommunications Corporation & Anor8 clearly supports this contention. It may be argued that this Court, in interpreting section 20 of the Constitution to include its application to artificial persons and the freedom of the media, in effect amended the Constitution, a function constitutionally exercisable by the legislative arm of the government. Whatever merit this argument may have, the fact of the matter is that the legislature, upon becoming aware of this ascribed meaning of section 20 of the Constitution, did not seek to amend the Constitution. In this regard it is also interesting to note that the 1999 Draft Constitution which was rejected in a referendum but was crafted by a constitutional commission composed of 5 Rattigan v Chief Immigration Officer and Ors 1994 (2) ZLR 54 (S) New Patriotic Party v The Inspector General of Police Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ghana 4/93 (unreported) 7 Dow v Attorney-General (supra) Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers 2 WLR 449 8 1995 (2) ZLR 199 (S) 6