9 S.C. 128\02 and the freedom of expression which is that press freedom is not a human right while freedom of expression is a human right. He further submitted that section 20 of the Constitution confers and protects a human right which is specifically given to a private human being in his individual capacity to enjoy. This right, so the argument goes, is not given to a media institution at all. Mr Tomana further argued that the explicit language of section 20 of the Constitution makes it obvious that it is referring to a human being and not the media or the press. In short, he argued that the domain wherein free speech is exercised by everyone is distinctly different from the domain wherein the media demands press freedom while using the common asset or the people’s strategic and limited asset, the air waves. He concluded by submitting that the applicant’s assumption that press freedom is subsumed under section 20 of the Constitution as well as Article 19 of the International Charter of the Civil and Peoples’ Rights, (ICCPR) is fatally incorrect. Mr Tomana contends that no cause of action has therefore been established and all prayers founded on section 20 of the Constitution should fail. In support of this contention Mr Tomana relied on the work of Robert W. McChesney entitled Rich Media Poor Democracy at p 269. He also relied on a presentation by Kaarle Nordenstreng to the International Symposium on the Mass Media Declaration of UNESCO held on 26 – 28 June 1987 entitled “On the Nature and Significance of the Declaration”. The applicant, on the other hand, contends that the freedom of expression enshrined in section 20 of the Constitution includes freedom of the press and any interference with the means of communication between citizens constitutes