Section 29(2) of the Legal Sector Laws (Misc. Amendments), Act No. 8A of 2023 to allow admission of electronic evidence without testing its reliability at admission stage. However, that does not remove the requirement of its creditability to be tested at the stage of evaluating the evidence. Moreover, the maker of the report ought to have tendered the report, or the witness tendering it should tell the court how he came across the document. Doing so could assist the Court in evaluating such evidence. Furthermore, it is unclear how reliable the OONI report is. We thus agree with the Respondents that the OONI report is not credible evidence and the blocking, if any, is a mere suspicion or speculation. We note the Petitioner's lamentations on the Respondents' evasive denials and Dr Philip Haule Filikunjombe's averments in his counter affidavit prompting the Petitioner to brand them as lies. On the submission that the Respondents have evasively avoided directly admitting that Clubhouse is being restricted by them, the Petitioner claims that they avoided this important question by refusing to directly and affirmatively respond to specific averments in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the affidavit in support of the Petition. In response to these specific averments, the Respondents stated thus: That, the contents o f paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 14 and 15 o f the Petitioner's Affidavit are neither noted nor denied as they are facts best known by the deponent. Additionally, the Petitioner subm itted that the Respondents through paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit are specifically denying restricting accessibility and availability of Clubhouse by transferring the blame to the Clubhouse Developer. The denial by the Respondents is couched in the following terms: That the contents o f paragraph 7 o f the Petitioner's Affidavit are denied. Respondent has not The Respondents state, the 2nd restricted 15 the availability and