84 S.C. 128\02 Having said that, I would like to deal with the applicant’s locus standi. In my view, the applicant has the locus standi to challenge both provisions. With regard to s 12(2), the applicant has indicated that it intends to apply for a national radio broadcasting licence. If that application succeeds, the applicant will be bound by s 12(2) and the restriction on freedom of expression will apply to it. Quite clearly, the applicant has the locus standi to challenge the provision in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution on the basis that its right to freedom of expression is likely to be contravened. As far as s 12(3) is concerned, although the applicant did not indicate in its founding affidavit that it intended applying for a community radio broadcasting licence, in its answering affidavit it stated that it was in effect keeping open its options as to whether or not to seek a community radio broadcasting licence. I am, therefore, satisfied that it has the locus standi to challenge s 12(3) in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution, again on the basis that its right to freedom of expression is likely to be contravened. In any event, both s 12(2) and s 12(3) specify the duration of radio broadcasting licences, one being a national broadcasting licence and the other being a community broadcasting licence. But both licences are for the purpose of furthering the applicant’s main object, which is the operation of a radio broadcasting service. In addition, ss 12(2) and 12(3) are so intertwined and the duration of each licence is so short that it would be impossible to determine the constitutional validity of s 12(2) without in effect determining the constitutional validity of s 12(3).