57 applicant. S.C. 128\02 The limitation by statute to one licence to provide a national free-to-air broadcasting service smacks of the State wishing to monopolise the airwaves. In the case of Capital Radio v Minister of Information Posts and Telecommunications SC-99-2000 this Court issued a declarator part of which provided as follows:“1. The monopoly on broadcasting services created by section 27 of the Broadcasting Act [Chapter 12:01] is inconsistent with section 20(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and is therefore invalid insofar as it vests in the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation the exclusive privilege of carrying on a broadcasting service in Zimbabwe; 2. Sections 14(1) and 19(2) of the Radiocommunication Services Act [Chapter 12:04] are inconsistent with section 20(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and are, therefore, invalid insofar as those provisions prohibit any person, other than the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation, from possessing or working a radio station for the purpose of carrying on a broadcasting service in Zimbabwe.” Section 27 of the Broadcasting Act that was struck down in the above case is strikingly similar to section 9(1) of the Act which is being challenged. It reads:- “27. No person other than the Corporation shall carry on a broadcasting service in Zimbabwe.” Mr de Bourbon, has argued that section 9 of the Act seeks to entrench a monopoly in the same way as section 27 of [Chapter 12:01] that was struck down as unconstitutional in the Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd case, supra. submission. I agree with this Section 9(1) and also (2) of the Act create monopolies, which on the authority of Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd, supra, are unconstitutional. I do accept that airwaves are a finite resource and that the State has to observe international restrictions when allocating the frequencies. I also believe that there is merit in the