and that the organisation is not ‘fit and suitable’ for registration, then the application will receive an adverse report. The Regulations allow for arbitrary imposition of conditions on pending applications. They do not provide for a list of criteria to be applied by the District Arts Council to determine ‘fit and suitable’, and as a basis for perceiving that applicant as unlikely to comply with Regulations. The law is not clear enough for prospective applicants to align their conduct to the requirements of the law. The law falls short of the basic qualities any law must have to qualify as law. At best the District Arts Council is allowed to speculate and the speculation invariably carries the day. Accordingly, the provisions cited above go beyond what is necessary to achieve the legislative objective hence unduly limits the exercise of the right under both the Constitution and international legal obligations. It is yet another form of pre-censorship. Section 4(2)(b) as read with 14(2)(b) – public interest grounds The District Arts Council is again allowed to consider whether it would be in the public interest to register the arts organization. Based on the same reasoning above, there are no criteria laid down to determine what is and is not in the public interest. The subjectivity of public interest again exposes prospective applicants to arbitrary application of the law. Applicants have no possibility to align their organisations to the public interest criteria they are unaware of. Therefore, once again the provision does more than is reasonably necessary to achieve the legislative objective of the law. By so doing it violates artistic freedom to the extent that organisations to facilitate the exercise of the rights are arbitrarily prevented from registering and participating in the promotion of arts in Zimbabwe. The provision must be repealed or amended to include the criteria to determine ‘public interest’ and ‘fit and suitable’ organisations. 36 | P a g e