Geoffrey Andare v Attorney General & 2 others [2016] eKLR constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the government has only one duty; to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. All the Court does, or can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the question. The only power it has, if such it may be called, is the power of judgment. This Court neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy. Its delicate and difficult office is to ascertain and declare whether the legislation is in accordance with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution; and, having done that, its duty ends.” (Emphasis added) 66. It has also been held that in determining the constitutionality of a statute, a court must be guided by the object and purpose of the impugned statute, which object and purpose can be discerned from the legislation itself. The Supreme Court of Canada in R vs Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 enunciated this principle as follows: “Both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and achieved effects have been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus the validity.” 67. See also the decision of the High Court in Murang’a Bar Operators and Another vs Minister of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security and Others Nairobi Petition No. 3 of 2011. 68. I bear in mind also the provisions of Article 2 of the Constitution, which is emphatic that the Constitution is supreme, and any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency. 69. With respect to the interpretation of the Constitution, Article 259 provides the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted. It requires that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that promotes its purposes, values and principles, advances the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights, and that contributes to good governance. At Article 159(2) (e) the Constitution mandates the Court, in exercising its judicial authority, to protect and promote the purpose and principles of the Constitution. 70. In the case of Tinyefuza vs Attorney General of Uganda, Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1997 (1997 UGCC 3), the Court held that the provisions of the Constitution must be read as an integrated whole, without any one particular provision destroying the other but each sustaining the other. 71. I am also mindful of the words of the Court in the case of Ndyanabo vs Attorney General of Tanzania [2001] EA 495 with regard to the constitutionality of a statute. In that case, the Court observed that there is a general presumption that every Act of Parliament is constitutional, and the burden of proving the contrary rests upon any person who alleges otherwise. 72. However, with respect to provisions of legislation that limit or are intended to limit fundamental rights and freedoms, the Constitution itself qualifies the presumption. As was observed in the CORD Case: http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 12/20