Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 24 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 A person who has paid his or her television or radio licence fee to the ZBC would however, not have to worry about what equipment he or she may possess without the requisite licence. Possession of a listener’s licence provides greater protection and legal security in the exercise of the right to receive ideas and information from a medium of one’s free choice without fear of being sanctioned. The person who, like the applicants, is in possession of a television or radio set without a licence falls within the class of persons under the obligation to pay the licence tax. He or she cannot escape the consequences of the obligation by claiming protection from the very law he or she is required to obey unless the law is unconstitutional. A law abiding person would, upon a proper reading of the provisions of s 38B(1) together with ss 38A and 2(1) of the Act, with legal advice if necessary, receive the guidance from the law as to which gadgets would attract criminal charges if possessed without a licence. Chavunduka & Anor v Minister of Home Affairs & Anor 2000(1) ZLR 552(S) at 560-561. There was failure by the applicants to read and understand the provisions of s 38B(1) in the context of the other provisions with a direct bearing on its meaning. The allegation that s 38B(1) of the Act falls foul of the requirements of legality and violates the right to the protection of the law is unfounded. The prohibited conduct is clearly and precisely defined in content and scope. It is possession of a receiver without a listener’s licence. A receiver is then defined in terms which ensure that any person of ordinary intelligence would be able to know the types of gadgets the possession of which requires a listener’s licence. The terms of the provisions are couched in language that ensures that the right of an individual to do that which is not prohibited by law is not infringed. What is prohibited is previously