State parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter. 47. The Complainant contends that CLO is human rights organisation, permitting its employees the opportunity to work together towards respect for human rights through organised programmes. Such programmes are aimed at enlightening the people of their rights. The persecution of its employees and raids of its offices in an attempt to undermine its ability to function in this regard, amount to an infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of the Charter providing for the rights to freedom of expression and association respectively. Article 9 of the Charter provides: 1. Every individual shall have the right to receive information. 2. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law. 48. The complaint above is therefore a violation of this provision. On the other hand, Article 10 states: 1. Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law. In its Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Association, the Commission observed thus: 1. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and international standard; 2. In regulating the use of this right, the competent authorities should not enact provisions which would limit the exercise of this freedom; 3. The regulation of the exercise of the right to freedom of association should be consistent with State's obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. 49. The above acts of the Respondent State constitute a violation of Article 10 of the Charter. 50. The Complainant alleges that the arrest and detention of Messrs Ifowodo and Agbakoba while returning from trips abroad is a violation of Article 12 (2) of the Charter. In this regard, it is contended that when re-entry points become sites of frequent harassment and arrest, freedom of movement is infringed. Further that the Charter provides for restrictions on the right to freedom of movement only by law for the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality. The arrest and subsequent detentions of the two men is unjustified by any appeal to these restrictions.