controlled and managed by a Board which consists of no fewer than five members and [no] more than seven members of whom at least three shall be nominated by an association of journalists and an association of media houses. The Respondent State submits that the Complainants’ suggestion that the registration process is prejudicial to them is baseless as there are other independent journalists who have been registered even though their work is critical of the government. 63. It is incorrect, the Respondent State argues, to suggest that Section 80 of the AIPPA unreasonably restricts the right to freedom of expression and dissemination of information. According to the Respondent State, Section 80 restricts not all falsehoods, but only those that are willfully published and that are likely to injure the public interest. In the opinion of the Respondent State, such restrictions are reasonably necessary and cannot be held to be excessively invasive of the enjoyment of the guaranteed right. 64. On the allegation that the AIPPA seeks to regulate the media, the Respondent State submits that the constitutional court has already held that accreditation of journalists and the licensing of electronic media is constitutional as long as the requirements for such accreditation and licensing are not 9 onerous. The Respondent State also made reference to the provisions of Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 9 of the African Charter to the effect that the right is subject to regulation by law. 65. In response to the Complainants’ submission that journalists should not be regulated by statute but should be self-regulating, the Respondent State submits that this amounts to no regulation, and goes beyond what is permissible, adding that regulation of the media including licensing of journalists is permissible. 66. The Respondent State argues further that in terms of Article 9 of the African Charter together with Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, freedom of expression is not absolute. Those restrictions are permissible if provided by law and are necessary. The Respondent State cites the case of Athukorale and others, supra where it was held that: “Absolute and unrestricted individual rights do not and cannot exist in a modern State. The welfare of the individual, as a member of collective society, lies in a happy compromise between his rights as an individual and the interests of the society to which he belongs.” 67. The Respondent State submits that the Constitution of Zimbabwe contains a justiciable Bill of Rights and Section 20(1) provides that everyone has a right to freedom of expression. It states further that, in terms of Section 20 (2) of the Constitution, the right can be restricted. 68. The Respondent State argues further that in terms of the Zimbabwe Constitution the freedom of expression is guaranteed with permissible limitations. This is in accordance with Article 9 of the African Charter which guarantees the enjoyment of the right “within the law”, and according to the Respondent State, the “law” referred to in Article 9 of the Charter, relates to“domestic law”. 69. The Respondent State submits that what is explicit in the African Charter is the recognition that the exercise of the right is subject to national law, adding that the Complainants conveniently avoided to mention or place emphasis on the wording of the article in question. 70. AIPPA, according to the Respondent State, is a law made in terms of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and Section 79 thereof has been held by the Zimbabwean constitutional court as constitutional. The State cites Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) v The Minister of State for Information and Publicity and 2 Others SC 111/04 and Association of Independent Journalists and 2 Others v The Minister of State and 2 Others SC 136/02 to support this submission. 71. The State submits further that the practice of journalism does not place it beyond statutory regulation and any such law has however to conform to the stringent requirements of limitations provided for by the Constitution, and according to the State, Section 79 of AIPPA passes the test. 72. The Respondent State states further that the registration exercise is of a technical nature, it is not onerous, and urges the Commission to find Section 79 of AIPPA does not contravene the right to freedom of expression under Article 9 of the African Charter. 73. With respect to Section 80 of AIPPA, the Respondent State submits that the provision makes it an offence to intentionally publish falsehoods which threatens the interests of defence, public safety, public order, the economic interests of the State, public morality or public health or are injurious to reputation, rights and freedoms of other persons.