should be a stand alone budget to be administered and accounted for to Parliament by the independent body. VIII. The law appears to be silent on the use of State resources by political parties for party business and running election campaigns. We have noted above how ZANU (PF) has with impunity, in fact as if it is a ‘birthright’, used State resources to support its activities and for political campaigns. The law must clearly prohibit the use of State resources for party business by political parties, whether they are in government or not. A clear line must be drawn between ministers’ responsibilities and duties as members of government and their responsibilities and duties as members of their own parties. The two functions should not be confused or be intertwined. In particular, no government ministry should operate from a building belonging to a political party. Equally, no political party should conduct its business in a government or other public owned building. There must be serious penalties for breaches, including reparations. Access to the public media must be in accordance with the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections, which must be domesticated. IX. It is recommended that the prohibition of donations by non resident Zimbabweans to political parties should be reviewed by stakeholders. The prohibition sounds so unreasonable that if there are no other reasons, other than selfish ones, the law must be amended to allow all Zimbabweans, wherever they are resident, to make donations to political parties. As a way forward, and to facilitate consultations with stakeholders, the law must be amended as suggested. X. Lastly, it may be necessary to review of the current threshold for qualification for public funding by stakeholders. It has already been noted above that the current threshold for accessing public funding in Zimbabwe only benefits the MDC and ZANU (PF) and excludes smaller political parties, though this would change if the recommendations in paragraph II are adopted. However, such a review must bear in mind the caution by the Supreme Court in United Parties v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Others, supra, that it is justifiable to place a reasonable limitation upon the payment of State funds to political parties in order to encourage serious political contenders while at the same time discouraging ‘trifling’ parties from been formed merely to access public funding. At the same time, the legislature must take cognisance of the rider which the Court added: that unless funding is provided in a manner that is non-exclusionary and tolerant of political pluralism and electoral competition it will do no more than entrench major political parties and treat far less fairly minor 33