Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 21 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 makes provision for the acquisition of property in satisfaction of a tax within the meaning of s 16(7)(a) of the Constitution. The primary object of s 38(b)(1) and (2) of the Act is the raising of revenue. However labeled the obligation imposed by s 38(b)(1) of the Act on persons in possession of receivers is a “tax”. In the light of the contention advanced on behalf of the applicants that the money compulsorily paid to the ZBC as a licence fee is not a tax, no argument was made to the effect that s 38(B)(1) as read with s 38E(1)(h)(1) of the Act is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The onus was on the applicants to show that the provisions went further than was reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The standard of proof is a preponderance of probability. See Nyambirai’s case supra at 13B. The presumption is that the provisions of the Act the constitutionality of which is under attack are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. They are not in violation of s 16(1) of the Constitution as they incorporate the just demands of a democratic society. PROTECTION OF THE LAW Section 18(1) of the Constitution reads: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every person is entitled to the protection of the law.” Section 113 defines “law” to mean any provision of the Constitution. Section 18(1) of the Constitution provides protection to every person against a legislative measure which does not meet the requirements of legality. To be a law the measure that is required by the Constitution is to define the prohibited conduct in sufficiently clear and adequately precise language to enable a person to know in advance what not to do so that he or she may regulate his or her conduct accordingly.