those set out in Article 27(2) of the Charter and …such limitations must take the form of law of general application and must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”27 72. The above findings were confirmed in Konate v. Burkina Faso where the Court held that it does not suffice for a restriction to a right to “… be provided by law and be written precisely; it must also serve a legitimate purpose.” According to the Court, therefore, “the reasons for possible limitations must be based on legitimate public interest and the disadvantages of the limitation must be strictly proportionate to and absolutely necessary for the benefits to be gained.”28 As the Court further expounded, an assessment of a restriction on a Charter right must be conducted within the context of a democratic society and it must ascertain whether the restriction is a proportionate measure to achieve the protection of rights of others. 29 Importantly, in justifying a restriction to a Charter right, the onus always falls on the Respondent State. 73. Given all the above, it behoves the Court to assess whether section 6(1) of the NEA contravenes the provisions of the Charter and if it does whether its provisions can be a justifiable limitation to the rights protected by Article 13(1) of the Charter. 74. The Court recalls that section 6(1) of the NEA provides as follows: There shall be a Director of Elections who shall be appointed by the President from amongst civil servants of the United Republic recommended by the Commission. 75. In considering section 6(1) of the NEA, the Court finds it apposite to take a broader view on the structure and composition of the Respondent State’s Electoral Commission as reflected both in the NEA as well as the 27 (merits) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 107.1. (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 314, §§ 132-133. 29 Ibid., § 145. 28 21