The petitioners in this case did not pose a question for the interpretation of any Act of Parliament or law that contravenes any of the Articles of the Constitution referred to in their pleadings; neither did they complain about any provision within the Constitution whose interpretation they 5 sought from this court. The words of the provisions said to have been violated by the respondent are also clear and unambiguous, the petitioners did not seek to have the meaning of any specific words given meaning by this court. The complaints were all about contravention of provisions through acts and omissions of the respondent which they 10 alleged contravened clear provisions of the Constitution. The rights that are alleged to have been violated are guaranteed by the Constitution and there is no doubt about that. They therefore fall under the categoiy for which declarations and remedies can be issued by other competent courts or tribunals under Article 50 of the Constitution and 15 they need not take up the valuable time of this court. The matter therefore should have been lodged in another competent court or tribunal. But before I take leave of this matter, it is pertinent to address the meaning of Article 43 (2) (c) of the Constitution, which was referred to 20 inadvertently in the submissions of the petitioner and directly by counsel for the respondent, within the context of freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press and other media, which are provided for in Article 29 (1) (a) of our Constitution. Article 43 of the Constitution provides that: 25 30 (1) In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. (2) Public interest under this article shall not permita) political persecution; b) detention without trial; 12