64 S.C. 128\02 Subsequently, the applicant imported one antenna and one transmitter, hired some broadcasting equipment, and began broadcasting on 28 September 2000. Thereafter, on 4 October 2000 the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures)(Broadcasting) Regulations, 2000 (“the Regulations”), published in Statutory Instrument 255A of 2000, were promulgated. These Regulations were subsequently replaced by the Act, which was promulgated on 4 April 2001 and came into effect on that day. The applicant’s contentions, as set out in its founding affidavit, are that various provisions of the Act restrict its freedoms of expression and association, in contravention of sections 20(1) and 21(1) of the Constitution, and have the effect of restoring the monopoly in broadcasting which was struck down by this Court in September 2000. It is further contended that the Act has taken away from the applicant its entitlement to operate a broadcasting service, which was declared by this Court when the monopoly in broadcasting was struck down. Having set out the factual background, I would like to deal with the presumption of constitutionality. In Zimbabwe Township Developers (Pvt) Ltd v Lou’s Shoes (Pvt) Ltd 1983 (2) ZLR 376 (S), 1984 (2) SA 778 (ZS), GEORGES CJ considered the presumption of constitutionality and identified two meanings of the phrase. The first meaning is that where a party alleges that a statutory provision is unconstitutional, the onus rests on him to show that it is, and the second meaning is that if the challenged provision is capable of two or more interpretations, one of which is consistent with the Constitution, the Court would presume that the legislature intended to act constitutionally and would uphold the challenged provision.