of access instead of directing the Petitioner to contact the developer of Clubhouse. In our view this is a strange submission. In the cases of this nature, the burden of proof can shift when the prima facie case is established. We have concluded that the Petitioner has failed to discharge is duty to prove his allegations. The counsel for the Petitioner has without any evidence submitted that the conduct of the 1st Respondent leaves a lot to be desired in terms of their constitutional duty under article 29[5] of the CURT imposing a duty on every person to so conduct himself and his affairs in the manner that does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. It is our firm view that this submission is wanting and unfounded. It is also incompatible with the pleadings. The petition and the affidavit in support have cited the 1st Respondent as an example of institutions that use the Clubhouse. The petitioner's counsel went on submitting that under the above constitutional duty, it is submitted that the Respondents' omission and inaction to establish who is behind Clubhouse's inaccessibility amounts to conduct that infringes the rights and freedom of others including the Petitioner and the public interest that is protected under Article 29[5] of the CURT. It is to be noticed that it is in the public interest that the Clubhouse Page of the Chief Government Spokesperson be accessible without restriction and or reliance on VPN with a view to ensuring ongoing government activities are known to the public. The Respondents through learned State Attorney, Ms. Mdendemi responded by submitting that the Respondents are not the owners of the Clubhouse. Hence, they cannot tell who is blocking or restricting access to Clubhouse. Much as the submission of counsel for Petitioner sounds as good advice, we are of the view that his submission is amiss. There is no evidence that the Petitioner engaged the TCRA to inquire into the alleged restrictions. There is not any letter tendered in Court from the Petitioner to TCRA seeking clarification or inquiry on the Clubhouse restriction. Consequently, these seem to be bare allegations devoid of any evidence that Clubhouse is 24