Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2021] eKLR 100. I will begin by reiterating what the Court of Appeal stated in Haki Na Sheria Initiative v Inspector General of Police & 3 others case (supra) on the constitutional and statutory basis of public order. The Court remarked that the aspect of public order is variously provided for in the Constitution and statutes. It made precise reference to the various Articles of the Constitution and the sections of the law on public order. 101. The Court of Appeal, correctly so, found that the various rights and fundamental freedoms that come to play under public order are not absolute. Such, can be limited under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Court also dealt with the limitation of the rights and fundamental freedoms in arriving at the finding that the impugned provision is constitutional. 102. Having carefully read the said decision, I wish not to rehash how the Court arrived at its decision. However, I will look at the limitations on the various rights and fundamental freedoms posed by the said Section 5 of the Order Act against Article 24 of the Constitution and the criteria in the Canadian case in R. vs. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103. 103. Due to the centrality of Article 24 of the Constitution in this discussion, I will reproduce the same as under: (1) A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including: (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and (e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. (2) Despite clause (1), a provision in legislation limiting a right or fundamental freedom: (a) in the case of a provision enacted or amended on or after the Limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms, effective date, is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation; (b) shall not be construed as limiting the right or fundamental freedom unless the provision is clear and specific about the right or freedom to be limited and the nature and extent of the limitation; and (c) shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate from its core or essential content. (3) The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of this Article have been satisfied. (4) The provisions of this Chapter on equality shall be qualified to the extent strictly necessary for the application of Muslim law before the Kadhis’ courts, to persons who profess the Muslim religion, in matters relating to personal status, marriage, divorce and inheritance. (5) Despite clause (1) and (2), a provision in legislation may limit the application of the rights or fundamental freedoms in the following provisions to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Forces or the National Police Service: (a) Article 31—Privacy; http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 27/34