83 S.C. 128\02 of an applicant can be determined by examining the applicant’s assets and bank account. In that exercise, the identity of the person who supplied the assets or the money in the bank account is irrelevant. In the circumstances, the restriction in s 12(1)(f) is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society and is, therefore, in breach of s 20(1) of the Constitution. VI Sections 12(2) and 12(3) S 12(2) provides that a licence, other than a community broadcasting licence, shall be valid for a period of two years, and s 12(3) provides that a community broadcasting licence shall be valid for a period of one year. In my view, these provisions constitute a restriction on the freedom of expression. That is so because the very short licence duration exerts a serious chilling effect on freedom of expression in at least two ways. Firstly, it discourages prospective investors from setting up a broadcasting service, as they avoid taking the risk of the licence not being renewed and sustaining heavy financial losses. Secondly, the constant need to have the licence renewed every year or every two years seriously compromises the editorial independence of the licensees, bearing in mind that there is no presumption in favour of licence renewal as is the case in other countries.