It seems to me that the object of ss 20(6) and 21(4) is simply to underscore what is implicit in s 11; that whereas the freedoms exist and may be enjoyed, their exercise does not involve licence to interfere with or obstruct the free passage of persons or vehicles. THE IMPUGNED LEGISLATION The relevant provisions of s 6 of the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act are as follows: “(1) A regulating authority may issue directions for the purpose of controlling the conduct of public processions within his area and the route by which and the times at which a public procession may pass. (2) Any person who wishes to form a procession shall first make application in that behalf to the regulating authority of the area in which such procession is to be formed and if such authority is satisfied that such procession is unlikely to cause or lead to a breach of the peace or public disorder, he shall, subject to the provisions of section ten, issue a permit in writing authorizing such procession and specifying the name of the person to whom it is issued and such conditions attaching to the holding of such procession as the regulating authority may deem necessary to impose for the preservation of public order. (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (2), the conditions which may be imposed under the provisions of that subsection may relate to — Page 62 of 1994 (1) ZLR 49 (S) (a) the date upon which and the place and time at which the procession is authorised to take place; (b) the maximum duration of the procession; and to any other matter designed to preserve public order. … (6) Any person who convenes, directs or takes part in a public procession for which a permit under subsection (2) has not been obtained shall be guilty of an offence and may be arrested without warrant, and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.” The omitted subsections deal with publication of the direction issued by the regulating authority; the penalties for contravening subss (1) and (2); and the power of a police officer to order persons taking part in a public procession, if any direction issued under subsection (1) or any condition of a permit issued under subsection (2), has been violated, and the penalty to which such persons are liable. Counsel for the Attorney-General did not seek to argue that if, on a proper construction of ss 20 (6) and 21(4) of the Constitution, there remains to the person a freedom of expression and assembly in the places designated, the provisions of s 6 of the Act are, nonetheless, non-violative thereof. His opposition was based solely on the premise that a wide interpretation was to be assigned which denied absolutely the enjoyment of those freedoms in all such places. In my view the concession was properly made. The test in determining whether an enactment infringes a fundamental freedom is to examine its effect and not its object or subject matter. If the effect of the impugned law is to abridge a fundamental freedom, its object or subject matter will be irrelevant. Section 6 is plainly at variance with the enjoyment of the freedoms of expression and assembly protected under s 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It imposes a prohibition on the right to take out a public procession unless permission is first applied for and obtained from a regulating authority. It empowers a regulating authority, to whom such an