investigated are premised on the prevention of disorder or commission of crime, therefore the interference with the privacy of the Applicants with the purpose of procuring an information to show the breaking of a law is justified and as such is in accordance with the Law and necessary in a democratic society. In the case of Ludi Vs Switzerland No 238 ECHR 1992, where a telephone conversation was intercepted in an attempt to control crime of smuggling of cocaine the European Court of human rights held as follow: “Although the Court has no doubt that the telephone interception had been an interference with Ludi’s private life and correspondence, it found however that this interference had been in accordance with the Law.” 77. It is instructive that the Applicants did not deny the content of the film as captured by the petitioner rather their contention is the unlawfulness of the method used to obtain the information. The Court aligns its thoughts with the reasoning in the Case of Van Hannover Vs Germany No 59320/00 ECHR 2004 where the European Court of Human Rights opined thus; “There is nothing unconstitutional when balancing the public interest of being informed against the protection of private life, in attaching the importance to the method used to obtain the information in question” 78. Based on the reasoning above, the court finds that whilst the recording and filming that took place in the offices and residence interfered with the right to privacy of the Applicants, it was however done in accordance with the Law and is necessary in the a democratic society for the prevention and exposure of the commission of a crime. The allegation of violation of right to privacy of the Applicants fails. The Court therefore holds that the interference subject to the exceptions is not a violation of the right to privacy of the Applicants. 79. An ancillary issue which the Court needs to address relates to the allegation of the status in law of the petitioner. The Supreme Court having ruled that the petitioner was duly registered and stricto senso not been a human right issues, this Court will not review the decision as it amounts to sitting on appeal on the decision of the national court. The court further reiterates that it is not an appellate court 28