3 HH 359-20 HC 2534/20 Constitution or otherwise violate the law. The number of additional categories is not material to the determination of the constitutional and other issues raised. Applicant alleges that if the respondent is not interdicted from proceeding with the proposed accreditation many of its members as well as other media practitioners “would be significantly prejudiced in a variety of ways that infringe of the enshrined rights of freedom of the media and access to information”. The applicant also alleges that the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act [Chapter 10:27] which makes provision for accreditation does not provide for the additional categories proposed by the respondent’s Secretariat. The further grounds for impeaching the proposed accreditation are (1) that the decision by the respondent’s Secretariat is rushed and was reached without consulting the affected stakeholders as required by the Constitution; (2) that the respondent is presently not properly constituted in terms of the Constitution and the applicable Act, such that the impugned decision is that of the Secretariat rather than of the respondent; (3) some members of the applicant would be excluded from the accreditation exercise because of the restricted definition of journalists in the proposed categorization in light of the provision in the Act for “accreditation of journalists only”; and (4) that the proposed manner of accreditation is open to abuse, in that it can discriminate against some categories of journalists. The respondent objected in limine to the determination of the application on the merits on two grounds, namely, (a) that the application is not properly before the court because the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to it; and (b) that there is no legal basis for the application. I will deal with the objections in limine first. In respect of the first ground of objection the respondent’s submission is that the applicant ought to have appealed to the Administrative Court in terms of s 69(2) of the Act. That section states as follows: “An appeal shall lie to the Administrative Court against any decision made or action taken by the Commission in terms of this section.” The section in question deals with registration of mass media service. It does not concern the creation of accreditation categories or the accreditation of media practitioners. Reliance on it is therefore misplaced. There is the further submission that in terms of the Administrative Justice Act the applicant ought to have asked for written reasons regarding the decision of the respondent. The statement issued by the respondent on 22 May 2020, annexure “C” to the founding affidavit,