But risk of providing breaches of the peace has ceased to be an essential element in the criminal offence of defamatory libel; and the civil action for damages for libel and on injunction provides protection for the reputation of the private citizen without the necessity Jor any interference by public authority with the alleged defamer's right to freedom of expr sion.” The Zimbabwe Supreme Court in Nevanji Madanhire V. Attorney General, CCZ 2/14 unanimously held that the offence of defamation was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society within the contemplation ofs 20(2) of the former Zimbabwe Constitution. In its words: 4 “The harmful and undesirable consequences of criminalizing defamation, viz, the chilling possibilities of arrest, detention and two years imprisonment, are manifestly excessive in their effect. Moreover, there is an appropriate and satisfactory alternative civil remedy that is available to combat the mischief of defamation. Put differenily, the offence of criminal defamation constitutes a disproportionate instrument for achieving the intended objective of protecting the reputations, right and freedoms of other persons. In short, it is not necessary to criminalize defamatory statement.” When criminalization of defamation aims at preservation of state security the crime is referred to as “seditious libel”. 37