71 S.C. 128\02 to the exclusion and detriment of Zimbabweans.” In this regard, there is no rational basis for treating non-resident citizens differently from citizens who are ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe. Thirdly, there is no rational connection between the total prohibition of foreign investment in private broadcasting and the legislative objective of ensuring “compliance and monitoring of the provisions of the Act.” Finally, there is no rational connection between the total prohibition of foreign investment in private broadcasting and the defence and security of Zimbabwe. In fact, the second respondent does not say in what way the two are connected. Are the means used to impair the freedom of expression no more than is necessary to accomplish the objectives? I do not think so. In the first place, there must be many other ways of creating employment for Zimbabweans which do not involve a limitation of freedom of expression. Secondly, the legislative objective of ensuring that the airwaves are not controlled by foreigners can be achieved without a total prohibition of foreign investment. In fact what the applicant seeks is not an abandonment of control of the airwaves to foreigners, but limited foreign investment which is essential if private broadcasting is to be viable.