55 S.C. 128\02 There is no averment anywhere in the founding affidavit that the applicant is controlled by a foreign interest and might fail to obtain a licence on that basis. There is nothing on the papers to indicate that the applicant has been, is, or is likely to be, affected by the provisions of section 22. Indeed section 22 of necessity can only refer to natural persons. The applicant is a company or an artificial person incapable of being a director of another company. There is no suggestion that anybody wishing to be a director of the applicant has been, in some way, hindered by the provisions of section 22. Given these facts I do not see how the applicant can be adversely affected by section 8. The applicant does not fall under any of the persons disqualified under this section. In the case of United Parties v The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & Ors 1997 (2) ZLR 255 (S) this Court set some guidelines on what constitutes locus standi in constitutional applications in terms of section 24(1) of the Constitution. In that case the applicant, an opposition political party, sought to challenge the constitutionality of sections 25(1), 26(5) and 158(2)(c) of the Electoral Act on the basis that these provisions abridged the protection of freedom of expression contained in s 20(1) of the Constitution. The party also sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 3 of the Political Parties (Finance) Act [Chapter 29:04] on the basis that this provision contravened the constitutional protections of freedom of expression and assembly. As regards the challenge to sections 25(1) and 26(5) of the Electoral Act this Court held:- “That the applicant had no locus standi in judicio to bring the matter before the Supreme Court. In terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution an applicant has locus standi to seek redress where there has been a contravention of the Declaration of Rights in relation to himself. The applicant must be able to