Geoffrey Andare v Attorney General & 2 others [2016] eKLR 35. With respect to the provision impugned in this petition, the AG submitted that the words used in the section are clear and their literal meaning clearly brings out the mischief which they were intended to cure, as well as the cure provided. In his view, there is absolutely no vagueness in the provision, nor is it overbroad as alleged. Its literal meaning ought therefore to be applied, and in any event, subsections (a) and (b) of section 29 complement each other. 36. The AG denied that section 29 violated Articles 33 and 50(2)(n) of the Constitution. With respect to Article 33, his position was that the freedom of expression guaranteed in the said Article is at the same time regulated by the same provision so that the persons who exercise the freedom do so in such a way or to such an extent that they do not violate the constitutional rights of others. The AG was of the view that the Kenya Information and Communication Act was intended to enable the state discharge its obligations with respect to the right to freedom of expression, but also to strike the balance between the enjoyment of the right and protection of the reputation of others. 37. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 50 (2) (n) of the Constitution, the AG submitted that the section guaranteed to everyone the right not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not, at the time it was committed, an offence under Kenyan or international law. He agreed with the general proposition that retrospective laws are contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the conduct of mankind is to be regulated ought, when introduced for the first time, to deal with future acts and ought not to change the character of past transactions carried on upon the faith of the existing law. In the present case, it was his submission that the petitioner has not demonstrated any retrospective aspect of the provision of the Act in contention. 38. Finally, it was the AG’s submission that freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 33 is not absolute and can be limited pursuant to Article 24 of the Constitution. The provisions of the Act, which were intended to regulate freedom of expression, were therefore constitutional, and the present petition had no basis and ought to be dismissed. The 2nd Respondent’s Case 39. The DPP filed a replying affidavit sworn by Corporal Hannington Chumba on 19th May 2015. Corporal (Cpl) Chumba is a Police Officer attached to the Directorate of Criminal Investigation Department. He states that he was one of the officers investigating the complaint against the petitioner. 40. Cpl. Chumba deposes that investigation into the matter forming the subject of the petition commenced following a complaint by a Mr Titus Kuria. The complaint was that the petitioner, Mr. Andare, of Umoja Estate had posted a malicious post on his Facebook page under the name ‘Andare Jeffrey’ and on a group page “Jukwa La Siasa Mathare 2014”, accusing Mr. Kuria of misusing his position as a representative of a fund trust by the name CME Trust in Mathare Slums. The petitioner’s post was that Mr. Kuria sleeps with vulnerable girls in order to offer them scholarships. 41. Cpl. Chumba avers that he visited the petitioner’s Facebook account and verified that the account was genuine, and he retrieved the post, which he has annexed to his affidavit in evidence. 42. According to Cpl Chumba, the petitioner admitted having posted the malicious post when he was summoned to the police station. The posting, according to Cpl Chumba, was contrary to section http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 7/20