67 S.C. 128\02 Human Rights stated in Thorgeir Thorgeirson v Iceland (1992) 14 EHRR 843, at para 63:“The Court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society … Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10, is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted, and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established.” (emphasis added) This application was brought in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution which, in relevant part, reads as follows:“If any person alleges that the Declaration of Rights has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him … that person … may apply to the Supreme Court for redress.” I now turn to the challenged statutory provisions and consider whether the applicant has the locus standi to challenge them, and whether the provisions in question are consistent with the Constitution. I. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 8 These read as follows:“(1) Subject to subsection (3), a broadcasting licence shall be issued only to individuals who are citizens of Zimbabwe and ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe or to a body corporate in which a controlling interest is held, whether through any individual, company or association or otherwise, by one or more individuals who are citizens of Zimbabwe and ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) ‘controlling interest’ means – (a) all the securities in the body corporate; or (b) securities representing all of the share capital of the body corporate; or (c) securities equivalent in value to one hundred per centum of the share capital of the body corporate; or