44 whatsoever the circumstances might be . This in effect means even if there is a state of emergency in a country that threatens the security of a nation, a person’s right to be informed of the charges, in this case, the grounds of his expulsion, cannot be suspended/derogated from. This notion is reaffirmed in the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information which states that “Any person accused of a security related crime involving expression or information is entitled to all of the rule of law protections that are part of international law including, but not limited 45 to the right to be promptly informed of the charges and supporting evidences against him/her” . 46 In Amnesty International v Zambia the Commission held that the fact that the Complainants were not provided with any reasons for their deportation order except the general allegation that their presence in the Zambia was likely‘to endanger peace and good order’ means that the right to receive information as guaranteed under Article 9.1 of the Charter was denied to them. 195. In the present Communication, the victim was refused information regarding the reasons for his expulsion, and attempts to get this information through the Courts also proved futile. The African Commission is of the view that Section 36(a) of the Botswana Immigration Act is incompatible with Article 9.1 of the African Charter, and the inability of the victim to receive the information sought because of the restrictions under the Act resulted in a violation of his right under Article 9.1 of the Charter. 196. The second arm of Article 9 of the African Charter deals with the right to express and disseminate one’s opinion. The Complainants claim that the scholarly article of the victim entitled “Presidential Succession in Botswana: No Model for Africa”is the main reason for his expulsion. This, the Complainants allege, is a violation of the victim’s right to freedom of expression in general and political and academic freedom in particular. The Respondent State made no submissions on this particular assertion by the Complainants. As a result, the Commission will analyse the allegation of the Complainants based on the information at its disposal. 197. The African Commission underscored the place of political expression in freedom of expression 47 in Amnesty International v Zambia when it stated that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, essential to an individual personal development, political consciousness and participation in the public affairs of a country. The European Court of Human Rights has similarly stressed the importance of freedom of expression and further indicated the degree of tolerance expected for the respect and protection of this right. In Handyside v. United Kingdom, the Court opined that freedom of expression “constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a (democratic) society, one of the basic working conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. [...] It is applicable not only to ‘ information’ or‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is 48 no ‘democratic society.” 198. A higher degree of tolerance is expected when it is a political speech and an even higher threshold is required when it is directed towards the government and government officials. In this regard the European Court has held that politicians may be subject to stronger public criticisms than 49 private citizens . The African Commission has also indicated in its Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa that ‘ public figures shall be required to tolerate a greater degree of 50 criticism’ . 199. In the opinion of the Commission the article that was published by the victim is a purely academic work which criticises the political system, particularly presidential succession in Botswana. There is nothing in the article that has the potential to cause instability, unrest or any kind of violence in the country. It is not defamatory, disparaging or inflammatory. The opinions and views expressed in the article are just critical comments that are expected from an academician of the field; but even if the government, for one reason or another, considers the comments to be offensive, they are the type that can and should be tolerated. In an open and democratic society like Botswana, dissenting views must be allowed to flourish, even if they emanate from non-nationals. 200. The lack of any tangible response from the State on how the article poses a threat to the State or Government leaves the Commission with no choice but to concur with the Complainants that the said article posed no national security threat and the action of the Respondent State was