11 S.C. 128\02 (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; (c) … (d) …” (underlining is mine) Thus the freedom of expression as set in the South African Constitution is spelt out clearly and unambiguously to include freedom of the press. This is not the case with section 20 of the Zimbabwe Constitution. Is this difference in the wording of any legal significance? The approach that words of a statute be ascribed their ordinary or literal meaning tends to support the first respondent’s contention. However, there is another different approach to constitutional interpretation. This approach is supported by a long line of cases both nationally and internationally. On this approach a Constitution is considered a document that is sui generis requiring special guidelines of interpretation. These guidelines or principles include – 1. the Constitution must be interpreted as a living Instrument;3 2. the Constitution must be given a generous and purposive construction;4 3. the Constitution must be construed as a whole;5 4. the spirit of the Constitution as reflected in the preamble and national objective and directive principles of state policy is to guide interpretation by the court;6 3 Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 329 at 329; Dow v Attorney-General 1992 LRC (Const) 623-3; Muhozya v Attorney-General DSM) Civil Case No 206/93 (Tanzanian High Court decision, unreported) 4 S v Zuma & Ors 1995 (4) BCLR 401; Sakal Papers v Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305