66 S.C. 128\02 In any event, about twelve years after the Zimbabwe Township Developers case, supra, the Full Bench of this Court set out a three-part test which must be satisfied by any restriction of a guaranteed right, before such a restriction can be said to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, in Nyambirai v NSSA & Anor 1995 (2) ZLR 1 (S). At 13B-E GUBBAY CJ said:“From a procedural aspect the onus is on the challenger to establish that the enactment under attack goes further than is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and not on the State to show that it does not. See Zimbabwe Township Developers (Pvt) Ltd v Lou’s Shoes (Pvt) Ltd 1983 (2) ZLR 376 (S) at 382 in fine – 383A; 1984 (2) SA 778 (ZS) at 783. The standard of proof is a preponderance of probability. In effect the court will consider three criteria in determining whether or not the limitation is permissible in the sense of not being shown to be arbitrary or excessive. It will ask itself whether: (i) the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) the means used (to) impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective. See R v Oakes (1986) 19 CRR 308 at 336-337 (a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada).” That is the test which I shall apply in determining whether the statutory provisions challenged by the applicant in this case are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. However, because of the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, the test is to be applied strictly. As the European Court of