Judgment No CCZ 2/14 4 Const. Application No CCZ 78/12 (ii) preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; (iii) maintaining the authority and independence of the courts or tribunals or the Senate or the House of Assembly; (iv) regulating the technical administration, technical operation or general efficiency of telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting or television or creating or regulating any monopoly in these fields; (v) in the case of correspondence, preventing the unlawful dispatch therewith of other matter; or (c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers; except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.” CRIMINAL DEFAMATION Our law of criminal defamation is essentially an amalgam of Roman-Dutch and English law. The original rationale of the crime of defamation under Roman and RomanDutch law is not readily ascertainable. According to Jolowicz: An Introduction to Roman Law (3rd ed.) at p. 171, its rationale may derive from the social insecurity of the patricians, who became increasingly threatened by the mounting power of the plebeians. In 17th and 18th century Holland, the Groot Placaat Boek abounds with enactments on the subject. The reason for such repeated restatements of the offence seems to have been the prevalence of defamatory lampoons, squibs, verses and scurrilous satires, pertaining in particular to persons in authority. See Rex v Harrison and Dryburgh 1922 AD 320 at 327-328. In Zimbabwe, the offence of criminal defamation and its parameters are prescribed in s 96 of the Criminal Law Code as follows: “(1) Any person who, intending to harm the reputation of another person, publishes a statement which –