79 S.C. 128\02 one national television broadcasting station, could easily cater for the needs of the minority language groups. It seems to me that this area should be the preserve of the public broadcaster which relies upon public funds. In any event, private broadcasters are in business to make profits for their shareholders, and it may not be within their business plan to cater for minority language groups. In the circumstances, s 11(4)(a)is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and is, therefore, in breach of s 20(1) of the Constitution. V. S 12(1)(f) This reads as follows:“(1) A licence shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify - (a) – (e) …; and (f) the sources and manner of funding of the licensee.” In my view, the applicant has the locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of this provision. It has indicated its intention to apply for a radio broadcasting licence but genuinely fears that the requirement that the licence itself should specify such confidential information would create a chilling effect and scare its donors who might fear being victimised. The provision is, therefore, a restriction on freedom of expression. The only issue for consideration is whether the provision is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. The legislative objective for this provision is set out by the second respondent as follows:-