180. The Commission's jurisprudence, as seen in cases such as Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida, and Amir Suliman v Sudan, emphasizes that any restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must fulfill specific criteria, such as provided by law, serving a legitimate interest, and being deemed necessary in a democratic society.49 181. The Commission notes that the arrest of the Bloggers and Journalists is an undisputed fact, as confirmed by the Respondent State. The Respondent State contends that the arrest of the Journalists and Bloggers was to protect citizens from terrorism, violence, incitement, and hate speech. 182. As evident from the Commission's jurisprudence, having a legitimate aim alone does not automatically render a restriction legal. The restriction, however, can be deemed necessary and employed as a last resort to safeguard or promote the intended legitimate aim. In line with this, the Commission recalls the case of Nigeria Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria, where it was emphasized that the justification for limitations must strictly align with and be necessary for the ensuing benefits. 50 Moreover, limitations should not undermine the right to the extent that the right itself becomes meaningless or illusory.51 183. The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34, also pointed out that “when a State Party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.”52 184. In light of the foregoing, the Commission believes that the measures taken to restrict the freedom of expression should be justified based on the evidence that there is a concrete threat to the legitimate interests that proscribe to be protected.53 In the present case, although the Respondent State claims that the arrest of the Journalists and Bloggers is intended to safeguard citizens from terrorism, incitement of violence, and hate speech, there is no clear explanation provided n 2 above, para 114. Communications 140/94-141/94-145/95- Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (1999) ACHPR paras 41 and 42. 51 As above. 52 Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 paras 35 - 36 53 Communication 426/12 - represented by Media Legal Defence initiative (Agnès Uwimana-Nkusi & Saidati Mukakibibi) V Rwanda (2019) ACHPR para 182. 49 50 ~ 35 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/