89. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the African Charter, the Complainants argue that the deportation of Mr Meldrum was based on vague and unsubstantiated reasons of a danger to public order, national security and breach of his work permit, adding that the deportation process gives unfettered discretion to the Chief Immigration Officer, and this is tantamount to indiscriminate practices by state authorities and erodes the right to equality before the law, therefore it is a violation of Article 2 of the Charter. The Complainants also argue that Article 2 guarantees against discrimination based on national origin. 90. Article 2 of the African Charter provides that: Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or any status. Article 3.2 provides that “[e]very individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law”. 91. Discrimination can be defined as any act which aims at distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on equal footing, 5 of all rights and freedoms. Article 2 of the African Charter stipulates the principle of non 6 discrimination, which is essential to the spirit of the African Charter. 92. The Respondent State argued that Mr Meldrum was deported because he violated the terms of his residence permit and therefore submit that Article 2 was not violated. The facts as presented by the Complainants indicate that the victim, Mr Meldrum, was legally resident in the Respondent State, his residential permit had not expired, and he had not been refused accreditation by the MIC. His application contesting the denial of accreditation under AIPPA was still pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court had ordered that he remain in the country until his application in the Supreme Court is disposed of. It had issued a restraining order against his deportation. In short, he was [o]n allfours legally resident in the Respondent State. 93. The Respondent State did not give any details concerning the terms of the residence permit which Mr Meldrum violated. The Commission is not satisfied by the reasons or explanations given by the Respondent State. It is not very clear why he was deported. Given the circumstances, it can only be concluded that he was deported because he was a non-national who had published what the Respondent State considered to be falsehoods, which are not protected by the Constitution. In its 7 decision in the case between , the African Commission held that ‘although governments have the right to regulate entry, exit and stay of foreign nationals in their territories, and … although the African Charter does not bar deportations per se, the African Commission reaffirms its position that a State’s right to expel individuals is not absolute and it is subject to certain restraints, one of those restraints being a bar against discrimination based on national origin’. 94. It would be interesting to know what the government would have done if Mr Meldrum was a Zimbabwean. Surely, the Respondent State would not have deported its own national to another country. The only logical reason the State deported him under then prevailing circumstances was because he was a non-national. In the opinion of the Commission therefore, it appears that the victim was targeted because he is not a national of the Respondent State, and this according to the Commission constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Charter. 95. With respect to Article 3 of the Charter, [the]Complainants submit that the deportation of Mr Meldrum in defiance of the court orders amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the African Charter. Article 3 guarantees fair and just treatment of individuals within the legal system of a given country, whereby every individual is equal before the law and guaranteed equal protection of the law.