Counsel for the respondent applied to adopt his conferencing notes as his submissions and court granted the application. Counsel for the petitioner applied to file written submissions after the hearing and was granted leave to do so. He filed written submissions on 6th January 5 2021. The petition was therefore disposed of on the basis of written submissions. Issues In his submissions, the 1st petitioner raised two issue for the determination of this court as follows: 10 1. Whether the actions of blocking and shutting down social media platforms and mobile money transfer services during the general elections of February 2016 by the respondent was a violation of Articles 29 (1) (a), 22 (1) and 45 of the Constitution. 15 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the remedies that they sought. Submissions of the Petitioner In his submissions, counsel for the petitioners stated that this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this petition because it was brought 20 under Article 137 (3) (b) of the Constitution which provides that a person who alleges that any act or omission by any person or authority is inconsistent with or in contravention of a provision of the Constitution may petition the Constitutional court for a declaration to that effect and for redress where appropriate. 25 Further that this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition since it alleges that the actions of blocking and shutting down of social media platforms and mobile money transfer services during the General 5