Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2021] eKLR scheduled for 11th October 2020 was halted and its conveners advised to reschedule the same fundraiser following credible information that there were some hired individuals who intended to disrupt the fundraiser and blame it on the police for political premium. • That further, the SCPC Mumias East, Mr. David Ndirangu, SSP from whom the OCS Mumias CI Christopher Wesonga sought assistance had instructed the OCS to advise the conveners to defer the fundraiser to a later date as arrangements are put in place to identify the disruptors and allow mobilization of reinforcements. • That underpinning the necessity for regulation of public gatherings and processions, the incidence that led to loss of lives and great destruction of property at Got Kweru in Suna West, Migori County may be called to mind; the incidence involved a confrontation between two factions of the Legio Maria Sect on 13th September 2020 where even the police response team was not spared as some of our officers sustained physical injuries and several police motor vehicles damaged. • That contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, there was strict adherence to government guidelines to combat covid-19 during the National Prayer Day. • That the meeting alluded to by the Petitioner at former Prime Minister Hon. Raila Odinga’s Bondo home, there was no prior report of an elevated risk of/likely breach of peace and the convenor was also found to have the facilities that would comply with the Covid-19 guidelines. • That the text of the National Security Advisory Committee (NSAC) directives does not derogate from the provisions of the constitution or any written law. • That the National Police Service enforces the law without bias and strives for a collaborative approach with conveners of public gatherings and processions. • That there are incidences where persons with ulterior motive deliberately accused the police of bias for selfish reasons including for political capital. • That the National Police Service discharges its mandate in compliance with the constitutional requirements of human rights and fundamental freedoms observance. • That under the National Police Service Act, the police have a statutory duty to maintain law and order; preserve peace; protect life and property; investigate crimes; collect criminal intelligence; prevent and detect crime and enforce laws and regulations with which it is charged with. That police functions are to be discharged without any external influence and must comply with the highest standards of • professionalism and discipline among officers charged with the mandate. • That there is no basis for the Petitioners allegations of bias by the police and that in any event the Petitioners case is premised on inadmissible hearsay evidence. 56. The 2nd Respondent submitted that it provided the operational justification of the legal requirements and explained how they are facilitative of police work and by extension the exercise of fundamental rights. The 2nd Respondent also submitted that it offered a detailed explanation on the incidences alluded to by the Petitioner which explanation was not rebutted and remains unchallenged. 57. In the end, the Respondents submitted that the content of the directives is not prejudicial to anyone’s rights as the same are mere restatement of applicable law that the police are bound to enforce in any event. The Respondents prayed that the Petition be dismissed. 58. On the issue of costs, the Respondents argue that it is generally the practice of the Court not to award costs on public interest litigation and that there is no compelling case for departure from the same in the present proceedings. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 17/34