EX.CL/717 (XX) Page 45 police. Under the Regulations it was now an offence to possess a “signal transmitting station”, that is, a station which is used for the purpose of transmitting a broadcast service. Accordingly, Mr Brookes stated to the police that CRPL would be taking possession of everything except CRPL’s transmitter unit, as they were legally entitled to under the Regulations.13 Despite this, the police proceeded to confiscate all the equipments.14 CRPL continued to be liable for the hire charges on the equipments at the monthly charge of ZM $ 158,730.00 (approximately US $ 2,886.00 at the time).15 22. On or about 16 October 2000, the High Court held the Assistant Commissioner of Police in contempt of court for the raid on the evening of 4 October.16 Neither the Assistant Police Commissioner nor the Police Commissioner denied that the stay of execution of the search warrant had been defied. 23. On 3 November 2000, CRPL’s lawyers wrote a letter of demand to the Police Commissioner seeking the return of the equipment, except the transmitter unit, which had been seized on 6 October 2000 and indicating that if this equipment was not returned, court proceedings would be initiated.17 No response to the letter of demand was received. 24. On 8 November 2000, CRPL applied to the High Court for the return of the equipment seized on 6 October 2000, apart from the transmitter unit. The High Court ruled in CRPL’s favour and ordered the return of the equipment within two days.18 25. CRPL was not allocated a frequency or granted a broadcasting license. No broadcasting licenses were issued during the six month life span of the Regulations, thus keeping in place the State broadcast monopoly which had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 26. Upon the expiry of the Regulations in April 2001, the Respondent State enacted the Broadcasting Services Act 2001 (the Act), carrying over many of the provisions from the Regulations. The Parliamentary Legal Committee issued two reports – one regarding the Regulations19 and the other regarding the Bill20 - both of which declared several provisions of the Regulations and the Bill to be Unconstitutional. The Speaker of Parliament dismissed the report on the Bill on a technicality and the Bill was passed without amendment.21 27. CRPL then initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court to challenge the Constitutionality of the Broadcasting Services Act. Accordingly, in June 2001, CRPL applied to the Supreme Court to rule that key operative provisions of the Act were 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Affidavit of Mr Antony Brooks dated 8 November 2000 The Herald ‘Police return Capital Radio equipment then seize it again’ 7 October 2000. Affidavit of Geraldine Jackson dated 8 November 2000 Capitol Radio (Private) Limited v Minister of Information & Ors (3): In re Ndlovu 2000 (2) ZLR 289 (H). Letter of demand Court Order from Gwaunza J November 2000 Regulations Report Bill Report IFEX Update, ‘Broadcasting Services Bill Passed into Law’ % April 2001.