an encyclopaedia to the evaluation of cases on (the) rights of speech and expression, media and other press and acceptable Constitutional limitations here and other democratic societies. ” The Court quoted extensively from the judgment of Mulenga, JSC, 5 where he enunciated the provisions of Articles 29 (1) vis-a-vis Article 43 (2) (c) of the Constitution and stated that one Article of the Constitution gives rights and the other creates restrictions on the enjoyment of those rights for the good of the rights of others, public interest and security of the state. That it therefore follows that the limitation of the enjoyment 10 of rights and freedoms of an individual are those provided for in Article 43; those which prejudice fundamental or other human rights of others or public interest beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. The court then referred to the following holding in the same judgement: 15 20 25 "However the limitation provided for in clause (1) is qualified by clause (2) which in effect introduces a limitation upon limitation. It is apparent from the wording of clause (2) that the framers of the Constitution were concerned about probable danger of misuse or abuse of the provision in clause (1) under the guise of defence ofpublic interest. For avoidance of that danger, they enacted clause (2) which expressly prohibits the use ofpolitical persecution and detention without trial as a means ofpreventing, or measures to remove, prejudice to public interest. In addition, they provided in that clause a yard stick, by which to gauge any limitation, imposed on the rights in defence of public interest. The yard stick is that the limitation must be acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. This is what I have referred to as a limitation upon limitation. The limitation on the enjoyment of a protected right in the defence of public interest is in turn limited to the measure of that yard stick. 30 In other words, such limitation, however otherwise rationalized, is not valid unless its restriction on a protected right is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society” The Court proceeded to dispose of the issues framed in that case bearing in mind the decisions in the cases cited, the provisions of Article 29(1) 35 and the limitations under Article 43 (1) and 2 and came to the 14