68. In that regard, he relied on the following decisions inter alia:i) Print Media South African & Anor vs. Minister of Home Affairs & Anor [2009], ZACC 22 where the Constitutional Court of South Africa described the press as “the public sentinel”, and that the free press lies at the heart of democracy; ii) R vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex-parte Firms [1999] UKHL 33(1999) where Lord Steyn stated that free expression is a primary right and without it the rule of law is not possible; iii) Roriesh Thappar vs. State of Madras 1950 SCR 594 where the Supreme Court of India held that freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations. iv) The Canadian Supreme Courts’ decisions in Reference RE Alberta Statues [1938] SCR 100, Irwin Troy Ltd vs. Quebec (AG) [1989]1 SCR 927, Canadian Broadcasting Corp; vs. Brunswick (AG) [1996] 3 SCR 480 where freedom of thought and expression, free discussion of public affairs and a free press were upheld as vital to any democracy and its institutions. v) In the same Court in the case of Express Newspapers vs. Union of India 1985 SCR(2) 287 it was held that the purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible Judgments. 69. Following the principles enunciated in all the above decisions, Counsel for the Amici Curiae submitted that good governance and human rights require freedom of the press and freedom of expression for them to flourish and that the Press Law negates these principles in specific ways as shall be detailed here below:Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 22