Geoffrey Andare v Attorney General & 2 others [2016] eKLR act. His case is that there is no evidence in the present petition that the DPP has misused his powers or contravened the rules of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. In his view, it is not enough for the petitioner to state that the respondents have not carried out sufficient investigations, for the quality and sufficiency of evidence gathered in an investigation can only be tested by a trial court before which the charges are brought. 49. The DPP further argues that this is not the appropriate forum for the petitioner to lodge the present petition, and submits that there is a danger in elevating every issue to a constitutional issue and avoiding the processes available for dealing with the issues at hand. 50. Finally, the DPP submits that there is no mischief or ambiguity in section 29 of the Act that justifies the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court. He therefore prays that the petition be dismissed with costs. Determination 51. Having read the pleadings and submissions of the parties in this matter, I believe that the first and main issue for consideration is whether section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communication Act is unconstitutional. I will thereafter consider the question whether there has been a violation of the petitioner’s rights in his prosecution under the provisions of the Act, and whether prohibitory orders should issue against his prosecution. Jurisdiction 52. Before considering the substantive issues, however, it is important to consider first the question whether this petition is properly before me. This issue, which goes to the question of jurisdiction, was raised by the DPP and was supported by the AG. The position they take is that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to determine the present matter as to do so is to interfere with the independent exercise of the DPP’s constitutional mandate, and further, that the matters at issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence against the petitioner are within the mandate of the trial court. 53. The petitioner has relied in response on the decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1; in Re the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission [2011] eKLR; and Samuel Kamau Macharia vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2012] eKLR to submit that this Court has the jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 23 and 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution, to deal with the matters raised in this petition. In his view, this petition raises matters beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court which have no relation with the weight, quality or sufficiency of evidence gathered and adduced at the trial in support of or in opposition to the charges. According to the petitioner, his case is that the provisions of a statute offend the Constitution, and the Court is duty bound to declare it unconstitutional should it so find. 54. It was also his argument that the Court, as the custodian of the Bill of Rights, is entitled to intervene where the facts disclose a need to prevent a violation of the rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution as was held in Bill Kipsang Rotich vs Inspector General National Police Service [2013] eKLR. 55. The petitioner argued further that where the constitutional validity of the section of a statute under which the DPP has preferred charges is challenged on account of violation of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to intervene and grant appropriate relief under Article 23 (3) of the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 9/20