the right to search, receive, and share information. In analyzing the submission from the parties, the Court is guided by the recent decision in the case of Dexter Oil v Republic of Liberia (2019) ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/19 where the Court determined the issue of whether non-natural persons can maintain an action for violation of human rights under Article 10 (d). The Court had this to say: “Human rights simply imply the rights that belong to all human beings irrespective of their nationality, race, caste, creed and gender amongst others like right to life, right to health and right against torture inhuman and degrading treatment which are specific to human beings on the other hand, right of a corporate body which a legal entity can enjoy and be deprived of, for example right to freedom of speech as the corporation is entitled to speak about its product, right to property as the corporation generates profits in shares and/or cash and is entitled to the quiet possession of same. The established exception under which corporate bodies can ground an action are; right rights that are fundamental rights not dependent on human rights and they include right to fair hearing right to property and right to freedom of expression.” 35. From the above stated authority, the Court made it abundantly clear that nonnatural persons can enjoy freedom of expression including other rights that are not dependent on human rights (i.e. derivative) and can initiate an action to protect those rights if they are violated. Therefore, the First to Seventh Applicants though not natural persons, have the locus standi to initiate the action as victims where the rights conferred on them as corporate bodies or legal persons are either violated or threatened without any lawful justification. The Court therefore holds that the First to the Seventh Applicant in this action have the locus standi in the application in spite of not being natural persons. 36. With respect to the Eighth Applicant, she being a natural person and having claimed that the shutting down of the internet access denied her the right to carry out her career as a journalist is sufficient grounds for the Court to believe that she 10 | P a g e