is a victim and as such has the locus standi to bring this action in her own right. The Court so holds that the Eighth Applicant possesses locus standi. I. ISSUE 3: Whether the Applicants rights to freedom of expression has been violated by the Respondent 37. Before analyzing this question of whether the Respondent violated the Applicants right to freedom of expression, the Court finds it imperative to firstly determine whether access to internet is within the contemplation of violation to right to freedom of expression. 38. Access to internet is not stricto senso a fundamental human right but since internet service provides a platform to enhance the exercise of freedom of expression, it then becomes a derivative right that it is a component to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It is a vehicle that provides a platform that will enhance the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. Right to internet access is closely linked to the right of freedom of speech which can be seen to encompass freedom of expression as well. Since access to internet is complementary to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression, it is necessary that access to internet and the right to freedom of expression be deemed to be an integral part of human right that requires protection by law and makes its violation actionable. In this regards, access to internet being a derivative right and at the same time component part of each other, should be jointly treated as an element of human right to which states are under obligation to provide protection for in accordance with the law just in the same way as the right to freedom of expression is protected. Against this background, access to internet should be seen as a right that requires protection of the law and any interference with it has to be provided for by the law specifying the grounds for such interference. 39. Having determined that access to internet is a right within the context of the right to freedom of expression, the Court will now proceed to address the question as to whether the shutting down of access to internet by the Respondent violated the Applicants’ right to freedom of expression. 11 | P a g e