68 (d) S.C. 128\02 securities entitling the holders thereof to all the votes in the affairs of the body corporate.” The first issue to consider is whether the applicant company has the locus standi to challenge these provisions. I have no doubt in my mind that it has. That is so because prior to the enactment of the challenged legislation it was lawfully operating a radio broadcasting service and was carrying out the commercial activities for which it had been established. It was exercising its freedom of expression and was unfettered by the restrictive provisions in the two subsections because they were non-existent. However, that situation changed after the Act came into force because ss 8(1) and 8(2) preclude foreigners and citizens of Zimbabwe not ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe from investing in the applicant. In fact, the provisions impose a total prohibition on foreign investment in the applicant, which the applicant badly needs, thereby making it very difficult, if not impossible, for the applicant to venture into private broadcasting and run a viable commercial radio station. Emphasising its need for foreign investment, the applicant avers as follows in the founding affidavit:“The Regulations and the Act have stultified Applicant’s attempts to obtain the lawful wherewithal (i.e. money etc needed) to broadcast … None of the equipment used in broadcasting can presently be manufactured in Zimbabwe and must thus all be purchased outside the country and is often quite expensive … One must realise that these technologies are not indigenous to Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean broadcasters will have to purchase the technology (which is prohibitively expensive, given the weakness of the Zimbabwean currency) or will have to offer equity to those who produce it in order to obtain access to it.”