is in accordance with the law and therefore is not in violation of the Applicants right to privacy. 61. With respect to the allegation that the petitioner being unknown to law, having not registered under the Data Protection Act, thus making the alleged acts unlawful; the Respondent stated that the Petitioner is a Company registered under the laws of Ghana and this was further confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court where it held that the submission of the Plaintiffs (now Applicants) that the 1st Defendant (Tiger eye PI) is an unincorporated body and therefore incompetent to submit a petition to the President is not only disingenuous, but a ruse to sway the Court from the real issue. The Supreme Court found the Plaintiffs’ submission as unwarranted and dismissed same. 62. The Respondent further stated that the petitioner is covered by Section 61 of the Data Protection Act, which provides as follows: The processing of personal data is exempt from the provisions of this Act for the purposes of; a) The prevention or detection of crime, b) The apprehension or prosecution of an offender, or c) The assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature. They contend that since the petitioner collected the information for the purpose of detecting crime and were thus exempted from the provision of the Act as it relates to registration, the filming and recording being in accordance with the Law is not a violation of the right to privacy of the Applicants. 63. On the limitation for purpose of meeting the requirement of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society, the Respondent contend that the investigation was focused at exposing the acts of the judges which is detrimental to the enjoyment of rights of free and fair trial by all citizens They contend that Judges in Ghana and in fact globally, have been personified as the symbol of Justice in any given society as their judgments determine the fate of citizens arraigned before them. Morally, judges are expected to be above board and uphold and defend the integrity of the Law. 22