That Section 24 is an integral part of the fundamental rights of others living in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  138. As seen, contrary to Article 19 (3) of the ICCPR, Article 9 of the African Charter does not establish a list of legitimate purposes that legitimize restrictions on freedom of expression. However, the general limitation clause contained in paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Charter requires that all rights and freedoms be exercised “[…] with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest.” 139. The African Court underlined in the case Issa Konoté v. Burkina Faso that restrictions on freedom of expression can be imposed to safeguard the rights of others, national security, public order, public morals and health (see paragraph 128). 140. Therefore, restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression can only be based on the reasons provided for in Articles 27 (2) of the Charter and 19 (3) of the ICCPR. 141. In this case, the Court finds that the objectives pursued by the provisions of the aforementioned Section 24 prove to be legitimate, since they fall within the motives provided for in Articles 19 (3) of the ICCPR and 27 (2) of the ACHPR and aim at safeguarding due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. 3. Necessity and Proportionality for the Intended Purposes 142. The Applicant claims that due to the vague nature of the term “offensive”, legitimate journalistic activity can be included in the scope of this provision and be subject to the threat of severe criminal sanctions, which is disproportionate and unnecessary; that the sanctions provided for in section 24 of the law do not constitute 33