* 65. In response, the Respondent State submits that the Applicants’ allegations under section 6(1) of the NEA have no merit. According to the Respondent State, although the appointment of the Director of Elections “… is done by the President [this is] subject to recommendation by NEC whose independence is constitutionally guaranteed.” According to the Respondent State, therefore, just because the Director is appointed by the President “… does not mean that they cannot be impartial.” It is the Respondent State’s submission, therefore, that “… until the contrary is proved, the mere allegation that impartiality of the Director for Elections is jeopardised following appointment by the President is unfounded.” *** 66. The Court recalls that Article 13(1) of the Charter provides that “[e]very citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law.” 67. The Court notes that at the core of the Applicants’ grievances in respect of the appointment of the Director of Elections is the question of the independence and impartiality of the office. In relation to this matter, in Suy Bi Gohore Emile and Others v. Côte d’Ivoire, the Court observed that, in Africa, “… there is a great diversity in terms of structure and composition of independent and impartial electoral bodies” due to the specificities of various countries.20 The Court thus held that “… it is not incumbent on it to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the structure and composition of the electoral bodies across the continent.”21 20 Suy Bi Gohore Emile and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (judgment) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 406, § 170. 21 Ibid., § 171. 19