Six-Hour Takedown Orders and the Capture of the Review Tribunal
The Constitution protects freedom of expression, and the Constitutional Court applies a four-step proportionality test, requiring that restrictions on political speech be clear and narrowly drawn. In March 2026 the legislature enacted the Electoral Information Integrity Act. Section 9 empowers the Central Election Commission (CEC) to order any platform to remove content within six hours where the content is "likely to materially disrupt public order during an election period." No prior judicial authorization is required; a platform may apply to the Electoral Appeals Tribunal within 30 days. Section 14 provides that tribunal members serve four-year terms, are appointed by the CEC chair, and are eligible for reappointment. Section 22 states: "The invalidity of any provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions." During the November 2026 local elections the CEC issued 1,340 removal orders; 61 were appealed and the tribunal reversed 2. A platform, two candidates and a press association petition the Constitutional Court to strike down sections 9 and 14 and to quash all 1,340 orders.
1. Apply the four-step proportionality test to section 9. Which step is decisive, and what drafting defects would you raise even if the legislative aim is accepted as legitimate?
Read the worked answer
Legitimate aim. Electoral integrity and public order are legitimate aims; the volume of orders during a heated campaign makes this step easy to satisfy. It rarely decides anything.
Suitability. Removing coordinated false content can reduce disruption, so the measure is capable of advancing the aim. Note, however, that a six-hour deadline makes accurate assessment of borderline content structurally impossible, which weakens suitability at the margins.
Necessity - the decisive step. Equally effective but less restrictive alternatives exist: (i) 24-hour notice-and-stay coupled with a judicial order; (ii) expedited injunctive relief from an ordinary court; (iii) correction or labelling rather than removal; (iv) removal confined to the 72 hours before polling day. The state must show it considered and rejected these; nothing in the record does.
Balancedness. "Likely to materially disrupt" is not a clear standard. It delegates the core definitional question to the very body whose conduct is being criticised, and it chills lawful criticism of incumbents. Because the restriction targets political speech, the clarity requirement is at its strictest.
Independent drafting defects. No defined threshold for "material"; no notice to the publisher and no right of reply; no requirement of a reasoned written order; the appeal is ex post only, so content disappears before any review; no sunset clause; no reporting obligation on the CEC. These are curable by redrafting, unlike the structural defect in section 14.
2. Assess the independence of the Electoral Appeals Tribunal under section 14. Does the 2-in-61 reversal rate tell us anything?
Read the worked answer
Relevant tests of adjudicative independence are appointment, tenure, reappointment, removal, budget, and the appearance of impartiality.
Applying them: members are appointed by the CEC chair, the very official whose orders they review. Terms are four years and renewable at the chair's discretion; renewability is the classic lever of informal control. No removal protection is stated, no budget autonomy, and no prohibition on executive directions. The tribunal therefore cannot serve as the sole check on a power that operates within six hours.
The consequence is structural: even a well-drafted prior-review scheme fails if the reviewing body is not independent. The defect cannot be cured by better reasoning in individual cases, and it cannot be cured by the tribunal reversing more often.
On the 2-in-61 figure: it is weak evidence either way. A low reversal rate can indicate independence (orders are well-founded) or capture (the tribunal rubber-stamps). Without the 61 case files, the grounds of challenge and the reasons given, the number proves nothing. Be careful not to let a statistic substitute for the institutional analysis.
Remedy the court should require at minimum: fixed, non-renewable terms; appointment by a body not controlled by the CEC; statutory grounds and procedure for removal; budgetary autonomy; and a duty to publish reasoned decisions. If the legislature will not amend, the tribunal scheme must fall together with section 9.
3. Assume section 9 is held invalid. How should the Court handle section 22 (severability) and the 1,340 orders already issued?
Read the worked answer
Severability. Section 22 is a standard clause, but a clause cannot rescue a provision whose removal destroys the scheme. Ask whether the legislature would have enacted section 9 without section 14. If the tribunal is the only check on the removal power, the answer is no: the valid core cannot stand alone. The clause is rebutted by structure, not by text.
Temporal effects. Immediate nullity would void 1,340 orders and create a regulatory vacuum during an election period. The realistic options are:
- Prospective invalidity with a deadline - the legislature has, say, 12 months to reconstitute the tribunal and narrow the standard, with the removal power suspended meanwhile.
- Suspension of the removal power pending amendment, with existing orders subject to individual review.
- Limited retroactivity, confined to orders still under appeal or not yet executed.
The Court should weigh reliance (platforms complied in good faith) against the silencing of candidates. An order already executed cannot be undone; a declaration of nullity mainly punishes the platforms.
Practical advice to petitioners. Seek suspension of the removal power plus an order that no new order issue until the tribunal is reconstituted, rather than a bare declaration of nullity that leaves 1,340 orders in limbo and invites collateral litigation. Ask also for a reporting order so the record for the next round is built now.