bulwark of society against the excesses and abuses resulting from the exercise of the right to freedom of expression legally guaranteed by the same constitution. 44. What the Applicant is doing is asking the Court to interfere in the domestic laws of a member State, namely that of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Section 24 of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 is under the domestic laws of Nigeria (See the case of CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT & 1 OR VS MAMADOU TANJA & ANOR. NO PROCESSO Nº ECW/CCJ/APP/07/09 AND JUD Nº: ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/11). CONCLUSIONS BY THE DEFENDANT STATE 45. The Defendant State concluded that: ii. The Applicant did not present any actionable error committed by the Defendant State, which would justify to the Court the analysis of the reliefs sought by the Applicant. iii. The Court should dismiss the Applicant's claim, since it is frivolous, unfounded, incompetent and interferes with the domestic laws of the Member State. Iv. That the Court should consider the Defendant State's argument in opposition to the Applicant's application and, consequently, dismiss it, for lack of merit and cause of action, in the light of international and domestic laws. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 172. It is for the Court to decide: a) Whether it is competent to hear the cause and whether it is admissible in accordance with the provisions of Articles 9 (4) and 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court; b) Whether the provisions of Section 24 of Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015 violate Articles 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 12