Alhassane Aboubacar v Ghana[FN15], that "competent authorities should not enact provisions which limit the exercise of this freedom. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution or international human rights standards. This principle applies not only to freedom of association but also to all other rights and freedoms. For a State to avail itself of this plea, it must show that such a law is consistent with its obligations under the Charter…' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN15] Communication 103/1993. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------115. The Commission adopts a broader interpretation of phrases such as "within the law" of "in accordance with the law" in order to give effect to the protection of human and peoples' rights. To be "within the law" the domestic legislation must be in conformity with the African Charter or other international human rights instruments and practices. The Respondent State can not argue that the limitation placed by AIPPA was permissible "within the law" i.e. within its domestic law. This would be tantamount to admitting that the exercise of freedom of expression is left solely at the discretion of each State Party. This, in the opinion of the Commission, will cause jurisprudential/interpretation chaos, as each State Party will have its own level of protection based on their respective domestic laws. 116. The African Commission succinctly made this point in Constitutional Rights Project; et al /Nigeria[FN16] where it stated the following; "[a]ccording to Article 9(2) of the Charter, dissemination of opinions may be restricted by law. This does not however mean that national law can set aside the right to express and disseminate one's opinion guaranteed at the international level: this would make the protection of the right to express one's opinion ineffective. To permit national law to take precedence over international law would defeat the purposes of codifying certain rights in international law and indeed, the whole essence of treaty making" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN16] Consolidated Communication 140/94, 141/94, 145/95 13th Annual Activity Report. 1999-2000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------117. The Commission therefore finds that the Respondent State's arguments that the accreditation of journalists and prohibition of falsehood are on grounds of public order, safety and for the protection of the rights and reputation of others, to be unsustainable and an unnecessary restriction of the individual's practice of journalists. 118. Similarly, by preventing journalists from freely exercising their right to freedom of expression, the Respondent State inevitably violates the freedom of expression of the Zimbabwean society by depriving the society the right to receive information due to the restrictions imposed on the journalists' right to disseminate information. 119. The African Commission therefore finds that Section 80 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Chapter 10:27) of 2002, was not necessary, it did not address any