house of 120 seats, which is a minimum of 15 seats”28. This high threshold meant that at that time only ZANU (PF) qualified and was, therefore, entitled each year to the whole amount set aside for funding political parties. The threshold adopted in the Act was clearly designed to entrench the position of ZANU (PF) as the ruling party while sidelining other political parties and making the emergency of new ones difficult. The Act itself was in fact a mere formalization of what had existed since independence. ZANU (PF) was already a beneficiary of considerable public funding, thus creating a huge gap in financial resources between itself and other political parties29. Some of the public funds were channelled to the party through ministries such as the Ministry of Political Affairs and the Ministry of National Affairs, which invariably were housed at the ZANU (PF) headquarters and tended to operate as if they were part of the ZANU (PF) secretariat. The money for financing political parties was allocated by Parliament, under the Ministry of Justice vote. Considering that ZANU (PF) dominated and controlled Parliament, in effect ZANU (PF) decided how much would be allocated to political parties. In practice, the Minister of Justice recommended the amount to Parliament as part of the overall ministry vote30. Payment to eligible political parties was proportional to the parties’ representatives in Parliament. It is not surprising that opposition political parties were thoroughly disgruntled by this, not so much by the principle of public funding of political parties itself but the high threshold which only benefited ZANU (PF). They proceeded to challenge the offending provision (s. 3(3) of the Act) in the Supreme Court in 1997 as noted above, on the basis that it was inconsistent with section 20(1) of the Constitution, which provides for the right to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court agreed with the opposition parties that the threshold was too high. The court said that freedom of expression concerning the activities of the political party in power, and of other opposing parties, should be protected from hindrance, and that this is essential to the proper functioning of a democratic system. Any violation affects the right of the people to be informed, through sources independent of government, about matters of public interest. The court ruled that political parties contending for ascendancy ought not to be limited by over-stringent legislative measures in their capacity to engage in dialogue as widely as deemed necessary. The court therefore declared the section 3(3) of the Political Parties (Finance) Act of 1992 inconsistent with 28 See Parliamentary Debates Volume 19, No. 20, 27 August 1992, 1300. Masunungure, op cit, p.24. 30 See Parliamentary Debates Volume 19, No. 20, op cit, 1303, where the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs said that the amount of money to be awarded to political parties in any year would be determined by the Minister of Justice in consultation with the Minister of Finance. 29 12