Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 3 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 For the purposes of the determination of the questions referred by the court a quo the “former Constitution” is referred to as “the Constitution”. The Court holds in each case that each provision of the Act the constitutionality of which is challenged does not contravene the fundamental human right enshrined in the relevant provision of the Constitution. Each provision of the Act is a legitimate exercise by the Legislature of the constitutional power vested in it in respect of the matters legislated upon. The provisions of the Act in question are valid. The detailed reasons for the decision now follow. The background facts are not in dispute. The applicant in the first case had under his possession at his place of abode a television set without a licence. On 5 July 2012 he was charged in the Magistrates Court with the offence of being in possession of a receiver otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) or its agents. The alternative charge was that the applicant contravened s 38D(2)(b) as read with s 38E(1)(c) of the Act. The allegation was that being a listener in possession of a receiver he failed to produce a valid licence in terms of a notice served on him in terms of subs(2) of s 38D of the Act. The applicant admitted that he knowingly possessed the television set without the requisite licence. There was no defence to the charge on the merits. He raised as a defence the allegation that the provisions of the Act under which he was charged are constitutionally invalid. On 13 July 2012 the applicant requested the presiding magistrate to refer to the Supreme Court