Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |125 Prejudicial effects of both sub-species The prejudicial effects that both sub-species purport to prevent are almost identical. As pointed out previously, the main differences between the two offences are: • The first sub-species does not requires that the maker of the statement should know that the statement is false and the State does not have to prove that the prejudicial consequences ensued, but only that the maker intended them to occur. • The second sub-species requires the maker knew that the statement was false or had no reasonable grounds for so thinking and the prejudicial consequence in question must have ensued and will apply whether or not the maker had actual or legal intention to cause the prejudicial consequence. The prejudicial consequences for both sub-species are almost identical and they will be dealt with together. In respect of the prejudicial effects other than undermining confidence in a security service agency, the Constitutional Court ruling will require a careful examination of • whether the offence is defined with sufficient precision; • whether the restriction on freedom of expression is rationally connected with one of the permissible constitutional grounds for imposing a restriction, the relevant grounds being the interests of defence, public safety and public order and the economic interests of the State; • whether the restriction is strictly necessary to protect against a direct, obvious and serious harm to the public interest; • whether the restriction on freedom of expression is disproportionate in respect to the objective and whether the objective can be achieved by less invasive means. Each of the prejudicial consequences to the State will be examined in turn.