123. The African Commission is satisfied that Sections 79 and 80 of AIPPA impose restrictive accreditation conditions and excessive burden on journalists and restrict their effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. 124. The Commission thus concludes that the arguments advanced by the Respondent State in justification of the restriction of the journalists’ right to freedom of expression are incompatible with obligations assumed by the Respondent State to respect Article 9 of the Charter. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the communication discloses a violation ofArticle 9 of the Charter. 125. In view of the above reasoning, the African Commission recommends that the Respondent State: 1. 2. 3. 4. Repeal Sections 79 and 80 of the AIPPA; Decriminalise offenses relating to accreditation and the practice of journalism; Adopt legislation providing a framework for self regulation by journalists; Bring AIPPA in line with Article 9 of the African Charter and other principles and international human rights instruments; and 5. Report on the implementation of these recommendations within six months of notification thereof. th Adopted during the 6 Extra-Ordinary Session of the ACHPR, Banjul, The Gambia. April, 2009. Footnotes 1. Section 78 provides that “Subject to this Act and any other Law, a Journalist shall have the following rights (hereinafter in this Act collectively referred to as “journalistic privilege”), i. to enquire gather, receive and disseminate information; ii. to visit public bodies with the express purpose of carrying out duties as a journalist; iii. to get access to documents and materials as prescribed in this Act; iv. to make recordings with the use of audiovideo equipment, photography and cine-photography; v. to refuse to prepare under his signature reports and materials inconsistent with his convictions; vi. to prohibit the publication of, remove his or her signature from or attach conditions to the manner of using a report or material whose content was distorted, in his or her opinion, in the process of editorial preparation.” 2. Judgment No. S.C. 136/02; Const. Application No. 252/02; Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, Chidyausiku CJ, Sandura JA, Cheda JA, Ziyambi JA & Malab JA; Harare November 21, 2002 & February 5, 2004. 3. Communications 105/1993, 128/1994 and 130/1994 4. In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that “The Constitution confers no right on an individual to falsify or fabricate information or publish falsehoods. Section 20 of the Constitution protects the right to impart and receive information, not falsehoods. Falsehoods are not information.” 5. Please see footnote 3 [sic] above. 6. OC-5/85, November 13, 1985, Ser.A, No. 5. 7. Zambia High Court Civ. Case No. 95/HP/2959. 8. 2000 Vol. 1 ZLR page 552 at 558. 9. The State in this regard makes references to the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v The Minister of State for Information and Publicity and 2 others SC-111-04, Association of Independent Journalists and Others v The Minister of State for Information and Publicity and 2 Others SC-136-02, and Capital Radio (Pvt) Ltd v Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe and Others SC-128-02. 10. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, November 13, 1985, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 5 (1985). 11. Id. Paras 71-73. 12. Id. para. 74. th 13. Communication 232/99, 14 Activity Report, also reported in the IHRDA Compilation of Decisions of Communications of the ACHPR, extracted from the Commission’s Activity Reports 1994-2001, at page 149. 14. Communications 147/95-149/96 15. Communication 103/1993 th 16. Consolidated Communication 140/94-141/94-145/95 13 Annual Activity Report. 1999-2000)