74. The Respondent also contend that indeed the only restrictions imposed by the said Order relate to political demonstrations while all others like cultural, sporting or religious events are unaffected. They also argue that the political restrictions in the Order do not implicate the Applicants, who are not political parties, nor does it prevent the expression of opinion of their activities or the exercise of their recognised rights. ****** 75. Article 9 (2) of the Charter provides as follows: “Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” It guarantees the right of individuals to express, disseminate and receive information subject to restrictions in accordance with the law. In considering whether the right of the Applicants to freedom of expression has been violated, the litmus test is proof that the ban has caused a freeze on their ability to express, disseminate and receive information which has occasioned some damages to the Applicants. 76. The freedom of expression by an individual is distinguishable from that of a legal person. While an individual may claim the right to express an opinion on any matter of public interest, this wide ambit is not available to a legal person. A legal person is not a human being but a person in law. Consequently, all its characteristics are determined by the legal mandate of its creation. A legal person must therefore conduct its activities in line with the law that created it failing which such activity will be declared ultra vires, null and void. 24