76 S.C. 128\02 In my view, the above objectives are not sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right to freedom of expression. The importance of freedom of expression should never be under-estimated. It lies at the foundation of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man: In re Munhumeso & Ors 1994 (1) ZLR 49 (S) at 56F-H. Is the measure designed to meet the legislative objectives rationally connected to them? In my view, there is no rational connection between the legislative objectives of s 9(3) set out above, and the measure designed to meet them. There can be no rational connection between the objectives of providing low-cost broadcasting and saving foreign currency, and the measure designed to meet those objectives, i.e. the requirement that a private broadcasting licence and a signal carrier licence shall not be issued to the same person. Are the means used to impair the freedom of expression no more than is necessary to accomplish the objectives? Put differently, the question is whether the restrictive provision in s 9(3) is the least drastic means by which the stated objectives of the section may be accomplished. I have no doubt in my mind that the answer to that question is a negative one. There must be many other ways of achieving the stated objectives which are less drastic than limiting the fundamental right to freedom of expression.