constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech in its effect.... It followed that the provision should be declared to be in contravention of section 20(1) of the Zimbabwean constitution which guaranteed inter alia that no person would be hindered in the enjoyment of the freedom to receive and impart ideas and information. The Court declared that section 3(3) was unconstitutional and fell to be struck down (BCLR 224 (ZS):226). The fiscus is now undoubtedly the major milk cow for those two parties that since 2001 have been eligible to receive public funding. For instance, the opposition MDC says 60% of its funding is from the state meaning without state subventions, the party would have considerable difficulty effectively participate in national elections and oiling its organisational machinery. It should be also noted with concern that the PPFA does not require disclosure of sources of donations from within the country not does it set ceilings for such contributions. Even more weird is that the recipients of the public funds need not necessarily account10 for them to the public and are free to use the funds as they deem fit. This is manifestly unfair to the taxpayer who pays the piper. Moreover, the Act supports political party activities, and not just its electoral activities. Other Sources of Funding for Zimbabwe Political Parties Contributions from ‘well-wishers’: This is a significant source of funding for major political parties who incidentally are also the recipients of the state largesse. Zanu-PF has raised considerable sums of money from its business interests that include shareholding in companies, and from wealthy supporters who have included bankers and industrialists. For its 2004 congress, it was set to raise about Z5 billion from both business interests and supporters. The MDC also relies substantially on business donors and one study revealed that business donations account for 10% of the party’s revenue (Sachikonye 2006, 33).. Membership dues: These are another major source of revenue for the two major parties. The sale of membership cards, especially in the run-up to elections, also generates considerable amounts of funds. For the MDC, membership dues contribute a respectable 20% of the party revenue. The small opposition Zanu-Ndonga also gets about 20% of its income from membership fees while the other little party, the Democratic Party, got as much a s 95% of its revenue from membership fees11. Party business interests: Both the ruling Zanu PF and the opposition MDC have substantial business interests that contribute to party finances. Zanu PF, for instance, has an extensive investment portfolio. Through a holding company called M&S Syndicate, the party owns or has substantial shares in a wide array of companies dealing in motor vehicle sales and garages, properties, the import and distribution of industrial machinery, water pumps, steel, building materials and mining (Financial Gazette 21 May 1998). Some of its companies have supply contracts with government departments, such as the Defence Force and Central Stores, and supply, for instance, books to schools and colleges nationwide. The party has a 50 per cent share in Catercraft, a company that provides catering services to airlines at Harare International Airport, and in National Blankets, a company that manufactures blankets in Bulawayo. Its printing and publishing company, Jongwe Printers had for along time a contract to print Hansard, official the record of parliamentary proceedings. 10 The 2001 Act provides for ministerial regulations that may provide for “the keeping by political parties of proper books of accounts, the audit of the accounts of political parties, and the form, content and publication of statements of accounts by political parties” (Section 8). To date, there does not appear to have been invoked such a regulation and the two parties have consequently escaped public scrutiny of how they have used the public funds. 11 However, its revenue base is so small that it did not have more than Z$2 million (less than US$50) in its bank account in 2006. It acknowledged ‘scrounging around’ in terms of funding (Sachikonye 2006 33). 23