69 S.C. 128\02 In the circumstances, the applicant alleges that its freedom of expression has been abridged. Quite clearly, in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution the applicant has the requisite locus standi in judicio to challenge the constitutionality of ss 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act. In my view, the fact that the applicant did not, in its founding affidavit, state whether or not it had foreign shareholders is immaterial. That is so because even if all its shareholders were Zimbabwean citizens ordinarily resident in Zimbabwe, it would still have the locus standi to challenge the provisions on the basis that the provisions do not permit it to have the foreign shareholders it desperately needs in order to operate a viable commercial broadcasting service. Thus, any foreign investment in the applicant, whether such investment takes place before the application for a radio broadcasting licence is made or after the licence has been granted, would disqualify the applicant from being a licensee. Quite clearly ss 8(1) and 8(2) constitute a restriction on freedom of expression. The only issue left for consideration is whether the restriction is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. To determine that, I shall apply the three-part test set out in Nyambirai’s case, supra. The legislative objectives given by the second respondent are as follows:-