exposing wrong doings" during elections for the position of Speaker of the National Assembly in 2003, and that in its efforts to punish him, the Respondent State "enlisted the services of the Kenyan judiciary". The Complainant also states that his complaints have been treated with "disdain, suspicion and contempt" and that the Respondent State is "cleverly insulating or shielding recalcitrant judicial officers". Further, he uses the phrase "damning information" to describe his submissions to the Vetting Board, and accuses the Respondent State of corruption. 57. TIle language used appears to merely but portray the judicial institutions negatively. Allegations that reflect negatively on the State or its institutions, such as allegations of corruption would not by themselves be deemed to constitute disparaging or insulting language, within the meaning of Article 56 (3) of the African Charter .".' 58. Also, thinking through the ordinary meaning of the words used, words such as "persecution" "revenge" or "retribution" are not words thatwould ordinarily be considered as insulting, more so within the context of this Communication. . 59. The Commission therefore cannot dismiss the Communication merely on account of its negative portrayal of the judicial institutions or on the premise of the allegations of corruption. The question is whether there are expressions or language used by the Complainant in the Communication that by virtue of their nature or on account of their effect, amount to insulting or disparaging language. 60. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers v Zimbabwc=, the Commission stated that in determining whether language used is disparaging or insulting: "The Commission has to satisfy itself that the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violatingtli,~ 4ignity, reputationor integrity of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to ... cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on the administration of justice". 61. In Ilesanmi v Nigeria'", the Commission analyzed the language used by the complainant and considered it to be insulting or disparaging language. The complainant in that case had alleged that the State had 'received bribes from drug dealers. Although the Commission acknowledged that 'in an open and democratic societu, individuals must be allowed to express their views freely', it nevertheless found that the characterization of the State by the complainant would lead any reasonable person to lose respect for its institutions and that language must not be used to injure the reputation of others. 62. In Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l'Homme v Cameroon-", the complainant described the State as a 'criminal neo-colonial regime' and its actions as 'government barbarism', the Commission found that insulting. Communication 284/03 - Zimbabwe LaWljerSfor Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabui Zimbabwe (2009) ACHPR para 51 16 Communication 268/03 - llesanmi v Nigeria (2005) ACHPR, para 40 17 Communication 65/92 - Ligue Camerounaise des Oroits de l'Homme v Cameroun (1997) A 74th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR 15