Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |113 the constitutionality of s 31(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law Code. Arguments The applicants sought a declaration from the court that the criminal provision in question was void because it was inconsistent with the freedom of expression guarantee in s 20 of the former Constitution (the 1980 Constitution.) They accepted that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute and that, in exercising this right, there is a duty not to infringe the rights of others or the public interests listed in s 20(2). They argued that the restriction imposed by s 31(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law Code on the exercise of freedom of expression exceeded what was reasonable in a democratic society. The applicants further argued that, although the restriction was contained in a law passed by Parliament, the provision did not constitute a rule of law because the essential elements of the crime did not define the scope of the prohibited acts in a language which was sufficiently clear and adequately precise. The prosecution defended the provision as constitutional, essentially arguing that the provision was reasonably required in a democratic society in the interests of defence, public safety and public order. Judgment of Constitutional Court A. The Applicable Law Vital Importance of freedom of expression Citing United Nations instruments and decided cases from the United States, Canada and India, as well as the leading Zimbabwean Supreme Court decision in Chavunduka & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 2000 (1) ZLR 552 (S), the Court (per Malaba DCJ, with whom Chidyausiku CJ, Ziyambi JA, Garwe JA & Cheda AJA concurred) explained in detail the democratic importance of freedom of expression and why it must be constitutionally protected. The State must ensure that people are able