there is a universal recognition of the right to privacy and the need to ensure it is safeguarded and therefore sought a declaration from the Court that their right to privacy has been violated by the Respondent. 59. The Respondent did not contest the facts as pleaded by the Applicants but state that they have not violated or acted in any way to unlawfully interfere with the Applicants right to privacy. Whilst recognizing the provisions in Articles 12 of the UDHR, and 17 of the ICCPR, it notes that Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution of the Respondent which is in pari-material with the Article 29 of the UDHR confers the rights therein subject to limitations placed by law on the exercise of such rights for purpose of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. Article 29 (2) of UDHR reads as follows: 2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. 60. In respect of the requirement of the limitation to be “in accordance with the law”, the Respondent state that the act of the petitioner is in accordance with the Whistle Blowers Act 2006 (Act 720) which empowers individuals to collect and disclose information about any wrong doing. The Act provides as follows: Art 1. (1) Disclosure of impropriety: 1. (1) a person may make a disclosure of information where that person has reasonable cause to believe that the information tends to show 1. (1) (b) another person has not complied with a law or is in the process of breaking a law or is likely to break a law which imposes an obligation on that person They contend that the said investigation targeted at exposing the Judges of acts which are criminal in nature is in compliance with Article 1(1) b above and therefore 21