00slg{
51. The Applicants have not responded to this objection. However, in their affidavits filed
in support of the Application it was alleged that the judiciary in the Respondent State
is not independent because the Courts are biased in favour of the Respondent
State's President and that the Courts are instruments of the ruling party.
52.The Court reiterates its earlier decision that, mere complaints, perceptions and
opinions of an applicant, on the State and its institutions in the circumstances of his
case do not amount to disparaging language.a
53. ln Lohe lssa Konate v. Burkina Faso, this Court drew from the recommendations of
the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as
"the Commission"), which held that for language to be considered disparaging or
insulting,
it must be "aimed at unlawfully and
intentionally violating the dignity,
reputation and integrity of a judicial official or body" and must seek to "pollute the
minds of the public".s The Commission has also noted that "...a Communication
alleging human rights violations by its very nature should be expected to contain
allegations that reflect negatively on the State and its institutions" and that the
Commission "...must make sure thatthe ordinary meaning of the words used are
not in themselves disparaging. The language used by the Complainant must
unequivocally demonstrate the intention of the Complainant to bring the State and
its institution into disrepute ..."6
4
LohE lssa Konatd v Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) I AfCLR 314, SS 69-71; See also Communication 435112
Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR)
SS 58-60;.
s Lohd /ssa Konat, v Burkina Faso (merits) (2014) 1ArcLR 314,
$ 70, citing the Commissionin Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rtghfs & Assocraled Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe (2009) AHRLR 235
(ACHPR 2009), S 88 (French version).
6 Communication 435112 Eyob B. Asemie
Peoples'Rights (ACHPR) SS 58-60.
v Kngdom of Lesotho African Commission on Human and
13