Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Mutunga, CJ, cited with approval the holding in Tinyefuza v Attorney General Const Petition No. 1 of 1996 (1997 UGCC3) that: “[184] The entire Constitution has to be read as an integrated whole, and no one particular provision destroying the other but each sustaining the other. This is the rule of harmony, rule of completeness and exhaustiveness and rule of paramountcy of the written Constitution.” 551. Article 24 sets out the principles that a court should consider in an analysis of the question whether legislation, which is challenged on the basis that it limits fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights, meets the requirements of the Constitution. It provides as follows: 24. (1) A right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall not be limited except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including–– (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and (e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. (2) Despite clause (1), a provision in legislation limiting a right or fundamental freedom— (a) in the case of a provision enacted or amended on or after the effective date, is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation; (b) shall not be construed as limiting the right or fundamental freedom unless the provision is clear and specific about the right or freedom to be limited and the nature and extent of the limitation; and (c) shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate from its core or essential content. (3) The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of this Article have been satisfied. 552. The Petitioners, particularly the 1st Petitioner, allege violation of constitutional rights, specifically the right to equality and non-discrimination, and the right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution. Accordingly, a burden is placed on them to demonstrate, with a reasonable degree of precision, the manner in which their rights or the rights of others under these provisions of the Constitution have been or are threatened with violation. They are required to set out precisely the Articles of the Constitution alleged to have been infringed and the manner of such infringement-see Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic [1979] 1 KLR 154. 553. In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs Attorney General and 2 Others [2012] eKLR, the Court re-affirmed the holding in the Anarita Karimi Njeru Case and stated that: http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 84/174