118 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal Undermining public confidence The applicants argued that the concept of “public confidence” was nebulous and was so susceptible to change as to render the offence unconstitutionally vague. They contended that it was almost impossible to measure “public confidence” in a public institution, as it depended on such factors as the political and economic conditions of a country at any given time. The Court decided that the words “public confidence” were not so vague as to be incapable of definition by the courts. These words were to be interpreted in the context of the performance by a security service institution of their constitutional functions and, in that context, refers to the trust reposed in the institution by the public. The basis of the trust is a belief that members of a security service institution will be able to execute their duties in accordance with the purposes for which the institution was established. The Court therefore decided that the contention that the provision as framed is unconstitutionally vague as to fail the test of legality is clearly unsustainable. The concepts of “false”; “real risk or possibility” and “public confidence” do not in themselves cause insurmountable problems of interpretation. The meaning to be given to each word or phrase as used in the offence is clear. Thus, the restriction is contained “in law” within the meaning of s 20(2) of the Constitution. With respect, the Court’s decision in regard to the concept of “public confidence” is questionable. As contended by the applicants, it is a very vague and elusive concept. It is difficult to ascertain and measure. How does the court ascertain whether a published statement has in fact weakened public confidence in a law enforcement agency to such an extent that it impedes the agency in fulfilling its duty to maintain public order and preserve public safety? Must the State prove that the statement undermined public confidence and trust in the agency to such an extent that it significantly and demonstrably prevented the agency from carrying out its duties? Must the statement have this effect in the public as a whole or simply a significant portion of the public?