Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 9 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 accordance with a programme of land reform may be compulsorily acquired are then set out]. Section 16(7) provides: “(7) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be in contravention of subsection (1) to the extent that the law in question makes provision for the acquisition of any property or any interest or right therein in any of the following cases – (a) in satisfaction of any tax or rate. (b) …” The Constitution demands that statutory provisions be looked at from the point of view of fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in the Declaration of Rights. That means that, taking into consideration the requirements of permissible limitation, statutory provisions must not violate fundamental human rights. If the provisions of the Act the validity of which is impugned are provisions in respect of taxation, the effect of s 16(7)(a) of the Constitution is that they are not a violation of the right to property. They are an infringement of the right if they are shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The obligation to pay the fee and obtain a licence for possession of a receiver is imposed by law. The imposition of the obligation in respect of the possession of a receiver, the fixing and collection of the licence fee are all designed to enable the ZBC to compulsorily acquire property in the form of money from a person who possesses a receiver. The question for determination is whether the provisions of s 38(b)(1) and (2) of the Act for the acquisition of the licence fee compulsorily paid to the ZBC or its agents are in satisfaction of a tax within the meaning of s 16(7)(a) of the Constitution? There is no question that the mechanism of funding given effect to by the provisions of the Act the validity of which is challenged, is based on the