70 S.C. 128\02 “1. To create employment and a source of income to Zimbabwean citizens, and therefore as a device to protect the economic wellbeing of the country. 2. To ensure that the use of the broadcasting frequency spectrum, which belongs to Zimbabweans as a whole, is not owned and controlled by foreigners to the exclusion and detriment of Zimbabweans. 3. To ensure compliance and monitoring of the provisions of the Act. 4. For the defence and security of the country.” I now wish to consider whether the restriction is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. Are the legislative objectives sufficiently important to justify a restriction of the freedom of expression? It seems to me that the second and fourth objectives are, but the others are not. Are the measures designed to meet the legislative objectives rationally connected to them? I do not think they are. In the first place, there is no rational connection between the creation of employment and the total prohibition of foreign investment in private broadcasting. In fact, permitting foreign investment in private broadcasting would be more likely to create employment for Zimbabweans than a total ban of such investment. Secondly, there is no rational connection between forbidding nonresident citizens of Zimbabwe from investing in private broadcasting, and the legislative objective of ensuring “that the use of the broadcasting frequency spectrum, which belongs to Zimbabweans as a whole, is not owned and controlled by foreigners