$$ EEE EE EE eoVO OOO respect or modesty of [someone or an institution]”.1° In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Right v Zimbabwe the Commission stated that “[i]n determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, or any other state institution, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence in the institution. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into disrepute.” In Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Commission indicated that it must further “make sure that the ordinary meaning of the words used are not in themselves disparaging.”!? 41. Asan example of insulting language, the Commission can rely on its decision in Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l’Homme v Cameroon, where it declared that the use of words such as “Paul Biya must respond [sic] to crimes against humanity”; “30 years of the criminal neo-colonial regime incarnated by the duo Ahidjio/ Biya”; “regime of torturers”; and “government barbarisms”,does amount to insulting language.'In the present case, the admissibili .the Complainant refer to ‘recalcitrant’ judicial officers, as those who h n protected:during the vetting process in which he, the Complainant, had submitted ‘damning evidence’ and who together with their ‘friends, sympathizers, and colleagues’ are now seeking ‘revenge’ and ‘retribution’ against,the Complainant. According to ‘the Oxford dictionary, ‘recalcitrant’ entails “having |an obstinately ‘uncooperative attitude towards authority or discipline”. By calling the judges: recalcitrant, the Complainant is thus implying that the judges were somehow ‘unreasonably and se -interestedly trying to prevent justice from being done. In the’ use of the ' words ‘revenge’ ’ and ‘retribution’, the Complainant makes the entire judiciary of Kenya out to’be pernicious, spiteful, hostile and malevolent. 42. Clearly the above characterizations of the judiciary are disparaging and undermine the dignity, reputation and integrity of the judicial officers as well as the judiciary as an institution. In addition, the assertions that his complaints were treated with disdain 1° Communication 268/03 - llesanmi vs. Nigeria (2005) ACHPR paras 37-40. 41 Communication 293/04 — Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLJ 120 (ACHPR 2008) para 51. 22 Communication 435/12 Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho para 59. 43 Communications 65/92 — Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de |!’ Homme vs. Cameroon (1997) ACHPR. As above, para 13. SON MUWAN AR (@). 2 \ @ 2 ee as AA