62 of licence sought by the applicant. S.C. 128\02 For the same reason, I agree that the applicant does not have the locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of s 11(4)(b), which only affects a television broadcasting licensee. However, I disagree with the conclusion that there is no basis for striking down s 9(3) of the Act. In addition, I disagree with the finding that the applicant does not have the locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(5), 11(4)(a), 12(1)(f), 12(2), 12(3), 15, 16 and 22(2) of the Act. Before dealing with the question of the applicant’s locus standi, and determining whether the challenged provisions of the Act are constitutional, I would like to set out very briefly the factual background in this matter because I consider it relevant to the issue of the applicant’s locus standi. I would also like to deal with the presumption of constitutionality. The applicant is a company incorporated with limited liability in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. Its main object is the operation of a radio broadcasting service within Zimbabwe. Shortly after its incorporation, the applicant discovered that it could not carry out its main object because in terms of s 27 of the Broadcasting Act [Chapter 12:01], now the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation Act [Chapter 12:01], the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (“the ZBC”) had an exclusive monopoly over broadcasting services in Zimbabwe. In addition, ss 14(1) and 14(2) of the Radiocommunication Services Act [Chapter 12:04] specifically prohibited any