J12 The state’s position was information ought to information is verified, against Section 67. be superfluous Subsection accused be verified the it is to prove in the he must of the ethical not event the that an does not breach be said to compelling an accused Applicants have various 18 the (7) give to ways of the It merely accused person For have if the offended press to do so. on an into play, they on his defence, he took to verify the accuracy However, provided of comes is put information defence the Article duty the measures falsity of raises not the accused published. in any way place any burden his innocence. demonstrate proving is cannot of the information before he published it. onus it point of view, The requirements for verification may even be said to because person before publisher (2), they said, does submitted, when that even from the press freedom the evidence of defending the state still has the published (2). in Subsection for Constitution, at whether or which themselves forbids the because trial, the once It placed on their defence, including opting to remain silent. for the Counsel State also that submitted Section 67 of the Penal Code and Articles 18 and 20 of the Constitution should be given their ordinary grammatical and natural meaning. when the intention of the Where legislature issues of ambiguity arise and cannot be ascertained the from words in the statute, then other rules of interpretation may be employed as stated in the FUNJIKA case. However, Counsel simple and clear and does not need any interpretation. English Court of Appeal ASHER case of SEAFORD COURT said, Section 67 is Counsel cited the ESTATES LIMITED (1949) 2 KB 481 where Lord Denning said at page 499 of the v.