Alleged Violation of Articles 7(1)(a) & 12(4) 114. The Complainants allege that the victim was deprived by law from accessing information relating to the reasons for his being declared a threat to national security, which in turn denied judicial authorities the right to review the President’s decisions. Together, these denials, according to the Complainants, amount to a clear violation of the right to appeal to competent judicial organs, a situation that affects the right to be heard. In this regard, they contend that the right to be heard entails 13 the right to challenge in a court of law, decisions that affect the individual’s fundamental rights . 115. Depending on Sections 7(f), 11(6) and 36 of the Botswana Immigration Act, the Complainants aver that the courts that determined the victim’s application and appeal prior to and following his expulsion, found that he had no right to any information regarding the President’s decision, and that the courts had no power to question the reason for his expulsion and that there was no legal limit to the unfettered discretion of the President. 116. According to the Complainants, the victim was not afforded any meaningful opportunity to challenge his expulsion either by way of hearing before the expulsion order was made, or by way of appeal after the order was made. He was not provided with the reasons for his expulsion and was accordingly not afforded an opportunity to challenge those reasons or provide evidence which might contradict them. He was neither given any remedy in respect of the violations of his rights. These decisions and the underlying provisions of Sections 11(6) and 36 of the Immigration Act, according to the Complainants, are inconsistent with basic principles of due process enshrined in Article 7 of the African Charter. 117. The Complainants aver that any decision passed “in accordance with the law” as provided under Article 12.4 of the African Charter should fulfil the following three requirements: one, it should be provided in a clear and accessible law to offer predictability and to guard against arbitrariness; two, it “…must be made by a court or an administrative authority on the basis of a law affording protection 14 against arbitrary expulsion through the establishment of corresponding procedural guarantees” In 15 relation with this they refer to the Commission’s decision in Modise v Botswana where the Commission stated that “in accordance with law” requires not only strict conformity with national law, but also with the principles of the African Charter and other international norms. Third, he contends that the procedural guarantees under Article 12.4 enshrine the right to meaningful judicial oversight of administrative decisions. 118. With regard to the issue of national security, the Complainants submit that while the victim’s case raises no genuine issue of “national security”, it is noted that, even where such legitimate concerns do arise, they do not provide a basis to set aside the rights protected in the African Charter. They argue that while legitimate security concerns can be taken into account in interpreting the African Charter, they cannot erode the essence of the rights protected, including the right protected under Article 12.4. The Complainants refer to Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme et des 16 libertés v Chad where the Commission stated that the African Charter does not allow States Parties to derogate from their treaty obligations even during emergency situations. They also refer to Amnesty 17 International v Zambia where the Commission found a violation of Article 12.4 where the national court did not consider Zambia’s obligations under the African Charter and failed to rule on the ground that the Complainant was likely to “endanger peace and good order in Zambia”. According to the Commission, “there was no judicial inquiry on the basis in law and in terms of administrative justice for relying on this‘opinion’ of the Minister of Home Affairs for the action taken”. 119. The Complainants contend that the President did not give reasons for the victim’s deportation, neither did he explain or justify his decision and considerations of national security. The President, according to the Complainants, applied a law which afforded him an apparently limitless power to make a declaration which has the effect of causing an individual to become “a prohibited immigrant”. This power is attended by a blanket denial of information as to the basis for its exercise. A law of this breadth and potentially all encompassing scope, the Complainants argue, lacks the clarity and precision required of “law”. They further state that its terms and the lack of procedural oversight render it a recipe for arbitrariness, as demonstrated by the current case.