Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 22 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 In Chimakure & Ors v A-G 2013(2) ZLR 466(S) at 497D it is said: “A compliant law must, in accordance with the principle of legality, enable a person of ordinary intelligence to know in advance what he or she must not do and the consequences of disobedience.” The right also provides protection to a person under a legal system that is fair in the sense that it guarantees to him or her all the procedural and substantive benefits of due process. In other words the right to the protection of the law guarantees to a person protection against an unfair legal system. The applicant in each case complained that s 38A of the Act defines a “receiver” too broadly to mean any “apparatus which is capable of being used for the reception of a broadcasting service”. The contention was that by criminalizing the possession of a “receiver” as defined in s 38A without a listener’s licence issued by the ZBC, s 38B(1) is too wide and falls foul of the principle of legality enshrined in s 18(1) of the Constitution. The argument was that a person would not know in advance whether s 38B(1) applied to possession of a television or radio set only or it applied to every gadget capable of receiving a broadcasting service. As this aspect of the broadcasting service regulation has the effect of restricting the exercise of the right to freedom of expression it must be shown that it meets the requirements of legality to be legitimate. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “a broadcasting service” to mean “any service which delivers television or radio programmes to a person having equipment appropriate for receiving that service whether the delivery is effected by means of or uses the radio frequency