73. Finally the media reports confirm the Applicants’ allegation that the above named security agents locked up the protesters in the Museum premises, whilst those outside were prevented from entering the venue. 74.The above facts support the Current Applicants’ narration of the alleged events and the Court is therefore satisfied that they have proved that they indeed gathered at the Museum on the date alleged and that security agents disrupted and prevented the protest from going on. 75.Having established that the facts as alleged by the Applicants have been proved, the Court will now proceed to examine the alleged violations to determine whether same have equally been proved 76. As earlier stated, the right to freely assemble though guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter is not absolute and provides thus, “...The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law, in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.” 77. As also earlier stated, the purpose of any interference by Government is to facilitate and not to prevent or restrict the right, as steps taken relative to the rights to freedom of assembly shall have the primary purpose of enabling the exercise of the rights and not to restrict it- paragraph 71 of the ACHPR Guidelines on Freedom of Association. 78.The pleadings of the Applicants did not indicate the reason given by the security agents for interfering with and dispersing the gathering. It is however, their contention that the Respondent failed to promptly 25