General and Others6 was cited in support of the need for the Petitioner to set out facts of the alleged breach in sufficient detail to warrant consideration by this Court. Further, that the constitutional enjoyment guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum and that an individual's access to information has to be conferred by law. [32] in responding to the cases relied on by the Petitioner, the 2nd Respondent argued that the case of Wypych v Poland1 is distinguishable from this matter in that the financial information that was required to be disclosed was imposed by legislation while in casu, there, is no law which imposed a duty on the 1st Respondent to publish presidential candidate's nomination information save for candidates at constituency, district and ward levels. Further, that the case Of Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms and People's Union for Civil Liberties2 was distinguishable from the matter in casu in that in the former, there was no legislation requiring that country's electoral commission to collect background information for candidates on behalf of the citizens. However, that in this matter, Respondent to collect legislation requires the 1st background information for presidential candidates on behalf of the citizens but the issue is that the publishing is required to be prescribed in an Act of Parliament or regulations. Further, that the prescribing has not been done. [33] The Learned Solicitor General, Mr. Muchende, SC, in his oral submissions in support of the 2nd Respondent's position argued that J14