communicate the decision prohibiting the assembly to the Applicants and the grounds for the lock out were not made clear, it was overly broad and vague as it was not specific in regards to the nature of the assembly nor the duration. 79.While these assertions indicate that some reasons were given for the lock-in by the Respondent, the Applicants did not provide details to enable the Court to decide whether the reasons as alleged were indeed vague, broad, nonspecific and not in accordance with the law thus amounting to the violation of the right to peaceful assembly. 80. The Court recalls again that the Respondent failed to defend this action. If they were justified as provided by law to disrupt the gathering, the Court has no such record and is precluded from making a case for them. In the absence of information from the Respondent, the Court must give credence to the facts submitted by the Applicants which is to the effect that the reason given by the Respondent to interfere with the gathering was unjustified as it was not in accordance with the law. 81.Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the action of the security personnel was in consonance with the restrictive clause in the Article that proves that the action was in pursuance of a legitimate aim. The Court has no record that it was aimed to protect national security or public safety, or to prevent disorder or criminal activities, protect the health or morals of the public, or protect the rights and freedoms of other people. 82. The action of the security forces was clearly not to facilitate or enable the exercise of the right of the Current Applicants to freely assemble as envisaged in the Guidelines, rather it prevented them from exercising their fundamental right to protest, thereby violating same. The Court therefore 26