59 S.C. 128\02 The respondents’ response to the applicant’s contention is found in paragraph 49 of the opposing affidavit which, in part, provides:- “49. Ad paragraph 18.6 The decision to allow for one other signal carrier licence other than the public broadcaster is once again, to ensure economic viability for both the public and the private signal carrier. It is also justifiable on the grounds that it will ensure simple and practical policing by the First Respondent to ensure compliance by both the signal carrier and broadcasters.” The main thrust of the applicant’s argument is that it is economically better not to split the licences while the respondents maintain the opposite view. The provision no doubt abridges the applicant’s freedom of expression. It certainly satisfies most of the criteria required for a law that abridges freedom of speech. The one criteria that is debatable is whether the restriction is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. As was stated in Zimbabwe Township Developers (Pvt) Ltd, supra, there is always a presumption of constitutionality in favour of an Act and it is only, in cases where it is clear that the restriction is arbitrary and oppressive, that the court can interfere. I am not convinced this provision is clearly arbitrary and oppressive. Section 9(3) of the Act may be undesirable from an economic point of view but it is not clearly arbitrary and oppressive. There is no basis, therefore, for striking down section 9(3) of the Act. In any event section 20 of the Constitution is about protecting the freedom of expression per se and not on how to exercise that right in the most economically advantageous manner. The applicant also challenges the constitutionality of sections 11(1) as read with para 9(1)(b) and (c) of the Fifth Schedule, and section 11(4), section