Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & another [2021] eKLR 40. Public order by its very definition presupposes a state of security, peace and stability that is free from criminal activities and violence. It is an integral component in national security which is defined in the following terms under Article 238 (1) of the Constitution: National security is the protection against internal and external threats to Kenya’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, its people, their rights, freedoms, property, peace, stability and prosperity, and other national interests. 41. It is clear from the above provisions, which we have set out in extenso, that the aim of the said provisions is the furtherance of the Act’s main objective namely, maintenance of public order. Notwithstanding the fact that Sections 8 & 9 empower different authorities (Cabinet Secretary and Police Officer in charge of a County or police division respectively) to issue different orders (curfew orders and curfew restriction orders respectively), it is undeniable that the basis of issuance of any of those orders is in the interest of the attainment of peace, security and public order for good of the residents of the Four Counties and the country at large. 45. On the limitation of rights and freedoms, the Court of Appeal went further to state that: ..The limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 24 of the Constitution was a question of inquiry by this Court in Seventh Day Adventist Church (East Africa) Limited v Minister for Education & 3 others [2017 eKLR (Civil Appeal 172 of 2014) and the Court held that: While Article 19(3)(c) recognizes that the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights are only subject to the limitations contemplated in the Constitution, Article 25 identifies only four rights and fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited. It follows that by Article 24 the rest of the rights and fundamental freedoms under the Bill of Rights are enjoyed and guaranteed subject to strict terms of limitations. First, it must be demonstrated that the limitation is imposed by legislation, and even then only when it is shown that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open democratic society. Further it must be based on dignity, equality and freedom, taking into consideration the nature of the right or fundamental freedom sought to be limited, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, its nature and extent, the enjoyment by others of their own rights as well as a consideration whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. [Emphasis supplied]. 51. In that appeal, the court further reiterated that the first inquiry the court should delve into is whether there is a law that restricts the enjoyment of a fundamental right and whether the limitation was justifiable or reasonable in an open and democratic society. In considering this latter point, the Court held that: The limiting law must be clear enough and devoid of ambiguity, for if a guaranteed constitutional right is to be limited, the limitation must be specific enough for the citizen to know the nature and extent of the limitation, his or her rights and obligations under the right as limited and the law supplying the limitation must be easily accessible to the citizen. 52. This position was buttressed in Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi [2015] eKLR (Civil Appeal No 56 of 2014) wherein the court set out similar prescriptions for a law that would limit fundamental rights to ensure legal certainty. Applying the principles therein to the appeal at hand, the law in question is the Public Order Act. It is clear to us that the impugned provisions do constitute a limitation on certain fundamental rights. ‘…65. We find that the impugned provisions are an acceptable limitation to the rights of the residents of the Four Counties and were not discriminatory as they applied to all the residents in the Four Counties. The objective of the Act is to attain the legitimate purpose of ensuring safety, peace and order and the attainment of national security in any given area of the country. Likewise, we find that Sections 8 & 9 of the Act furthers and is connected to the attainment of the objective of the Act. 66. Considering the essence of Sections 8 & 9 of the Act, we are satisfied that not only are curfew orders and curfew restriction orders imposed thereunder proportionate means of achieving the Act’s objective of maintenance of public order but are also in line with the principles of national security stipulated under Article 238(2) – http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 11/34