Decision on the merits Complainant’s submissions 58. The Complainants allege the violations of Articles 2, 3.1 and 3.2, 7.a, 9, 12.4 and 26 and 26 of the African Charter. 59. Concerning alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter, the Complainants submitted that the deportation of Mr Meldrum was based on vague and unsubstantiated reasons of a danger to public order, national security and breach of his work permit. 60. The Complainants state that the allegations against Mr Meldrum were never proven in the domestic courts, but the Respondent State proceeded to deport him despite numerous High Court orders that he should not be deported, until the constitutional application for stay of deportation had been heard. 61. The Complainants allege that the act of deportation constituted an unfettered exercise of discretion by the Chief Immigration Officer, which was tantamount to indiscriminate action by state authorities and violated the right equality before the law, therefore it is a violation of Article 2 of the Charter. 62. The Complainants conclude that the deportation of Mr Meldrum was not in anyway motivated by the desire to promote peace and security, neither was it to accomplish a given pressing social need, it was to physically censor him from disseminating information within Zimbabwe. 63. The Complainants recall the jurisprudence of the Commission dealing with cases of expulsion of non-nationals from State Parties to the Charter, in which concluded that deporting non-nationals without providing them the opportunity to challenge their deportation before the courts, constitute discrimination and inequality before the law. Article 2 of the Charter obligates State parties to ensure that persons living in their territory, be they nationals or non nationals, enjoy the rights guaranteed in 3 the Charter . 64. The Complainants argued that Mr Andrew Meldrum was arrested and charged under the Access to information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA), but the charges against him were subsequently dismissed in court, and the State never appealed. Further, the sections of the Act which were deemed to have breached were subsequently struck off and declared unconstitutional. 65. The Complainants submit that, in essence, the deportation of Mr Andrew Meldrum is unfounded at law. 66. Concerning Articles 7.1.a and 7.1.b, the Complainants note that the failure by the Respondent State to obey court judgments or orders constitutes a violation of the Charter and breaches the duty and right to have independent and competent tribunals and courts mandated with the protection of rights as provided in the Charter. 67. The Complainants submit further that the deportation order was a violation of the presumption of innocence which is a doctrine well founded under the principles of natural justice as it gives an accused person the opportunity to have his cause heard by an organ competent to determine such guilt or innocence. 68. They argue that, when an individual, who has a vested interest in the matter, acts contrary to principles of natural justice, and becomes the first and last institution of appeal, then decisions of such an individual would be a violation of the Charter, in particular Articles 7.1.a and 7.1.b. 69. The Complainants emphasise that the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows journalists to practice for six months whilst their accreditation applications were pending, and Mr