stipulated a period of two terms for the office of the President and a two round majority vote in the election into this office. 15. The Respondent maintained that notwithstanding the situation at the time the government sought a solution through inclusive dialogue with members of the opposition which resulted in a draft amendment of the Constitution on the 5th September 2017. That the amendment reflected the concerns of the protesters yet when the draft amendment was tabled for a vote in parliament the opposition political parties boycotted it and continued with the protests. 16. The Respondent contend that the continuing protests led to the loss of human lives, injuries being sustained on both sides and massive destruction of public and private properties. That as a means of countering the effect of the protests the Respondent had to contend with some form of control of the internet as hate speech and incitement were becoming rife. That the fear of drifting into civil war prompted the reaction and submits evidence in support of its claim. 17. In addition to the defense, the Respondent challenged the First to the Seventh Applicants that they did not have locus standi on the following grounds:  That the First to the Seventh are not natural persons  That they are not victims  That with respect to the Eighth Applicant the Respondent submitted that she had not stated the capacity in which she is bringing the action. 18. The Respondent sought from the Court the following reliefs: a. To strike out simply and purely all claims made by Plaintiff/Applicants; b. To order Plaintiff/Applicants to bear all costs; E. The Applicants’ Reply 19. Responding to the objection by the Respondent, the Applicants submitted that they are non-governmental organizations working for the protection of human rights and that the tool of their work is through access to internet. They further submitted that where such access to internet is denied their right to work and their right to freedom of expression is adversely affected. 6|Page