empower and encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in their governance. He also referred us to the Preamble to the Constitution, which indicates where the country Uganda has been and where we want to be as a democratic society with freedom of expression 5 at the centre. He referred us to Rangarajan v Jagijivan Ram & Others 1989 (2) SCC 574 and Union of India & Others v Jagjivan (1990) LRC (Court) 424 -427 where it was held that in a democratic state, freedom of expression is not to be taken for granted. Governance is by open discussion of ideas by citizens; be it wise or unwise, foolish or io dangerous, statements must be tolerated in a democracy. That Uganda is a democratic society and it must apply universal standards of a democratic society. Counsel further submitted that the protection of the right to freedom of expression is of great significance to democracy. That the meaningful 15 participation of citizens is a hallmark of democracy which can only be achieved through optimal exercise of freedom of expression. He referred us to Edward Kayima Lugonvu & 3 Others v Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No 24 of 2009 and Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza, Constitutional Appeal No 1 of 1997 for 20 some of the principles for constitutional interpretation. He attacked the response of the respondent, through an affidavit of a State Attorney, who stated that the shutting down of social media and mobile money platforms did not contravene the Constitution without justification or making inquiries from the Uganda Communications 25 Commission which regulates telecommunications in Uganda. He prayed that this- court finds that the respondent’s averments of fact in relation to blocking social media and mobile money during the elections had not been proved at all. That the actions of the Commission contravened Article 29 (1) (a), 22 (1) and 45 and this court should find so and grant 30 the declarations prayed for. 7