41. The present application is instituted by the Applicants impugning the Draft Bill on Hate Speech which they alleged is before the National Assembly of the Respondent, where it is being considered. They contend that by initiating such a Bill, the Respondent aims to censure the press, to put a wedge to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, to threaten, to limit, to muzzle, to suppress and to weaken the freedom of expression in Nigeria. 42. The Applicants further state that by acting in such manner, the Respondent is planning to limit, through legislations, the exercise of the right to freedoms and liberties as enshrined under Article 9 of the African Charter, Article 19 of the UDHR ICCPR respectively, as well as international norms on freedom of expression and the press. 43. A careful analysis of the instant Application reveals that it seeks from the Court an examination of an ongoing legislative process that has not yet crystalized into law. The Application requests the Court to examine a proposed bill in its incubation stage, which the Applicants fear, if passed into law would lead to restraining the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and opinion. 44. In alleging past, present and future human rights violations as an offshoot of the impugned legislative process, the Applicants in support of their claims, invoke anticipatory violation of Articles 9 of the African Charter and 19 the ICCPR and UDHR respectively as well as the violation of the principle of proportionality in the legislation of the restrictions on the rights as enshrined under Article 27(2) of the African Charter. 45. As a general principle of law in cases of human rights violation, it is the duty of the Court to examine thoroughly the Application with the view to 13