transboundary and cross-border human rights violations. iii. The subject of the certification application falls within the terms of Articles 165(3)(b) and (d) of the Constitution as demonstrated below: iv. The petition invites the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya by determining whether the policies, acts or omissions of the respondent as relates to the moderation of content posted on Facebook deny, violate, infringe or threaten the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights including, amongst others, freedom from discrimination. v. The petition invites the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(d)(i) of the Constitution by determining whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court of Kenya over petitions for redress of alleged transboundary and cross-border human rights violations is consistent with the Constitution. vi. There is a demonstrable state of uncertainty in the law as regards the subject substantive questions of law outlined above as they are novel and the Courts have not had an opportunity to pronounce themselves on the same. 7th Interested Party 15. The 7th interested party in support of the petitioners’ application filed its Replying affidavit through its Chief Executive Officer, Florence Muturi sworn on 3rd May 2023. 16. Echoing the petitioners’ sentiments, the 7th interested party avers that indeed the petition raises novel and complex issues with specific emphasis on the jurisdiction of courts on matter of internet governance and extra-territorial and trans-jurisdictional activities. In addition, it is stated that a number of novel issues crystalize from this petition: i. Whether the respondent practices algorithmic bias and discriminatory Artificial Intelligence; ii. Whether the respondent is liable for decisions carried out by the Respondent’s Artificial intelligence; iii. Whether the respondent has a duty to moderate the content in its social media platforms and to what extent the liability for this duty extends; iv. Whether the respondent’s content moderation and AI has led to breach of fundamental Human rights; v. Whether the respondent is liable for the breach to human rights and harm caused by its Platform moderation or lack of and artificial intelligence; vi. What is the liability of a foreign citizen for his/its activities or non-action; vii. Whether the Kenyan Courts would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate issues arising from action or inaction of actors over the internet; viii. Determination of transnational and cross-jurisdictional grievances. 17. The 7th interested party equally avers that the petition raises occurrences of an affront to fundamental rights and freedoms as guaranteed in our Constitution. In its opinion, the respondent who uses a mixture of artificial intelligence and human moderators to moderate the content allowed on its platforms, is liable to ensure that its infrastructure does not violate the constitutional rights of its users and citizens as accorded by the law and neither allow illegal conduct on its platform which violates of citizen’s rights. The respondent’s alleged inaction and neglect in this regard is argued to be in violation of human rights and freedoms. 18. On this premise, the 7th interested party asserts that it is necessary that this Court emphasize its authority and jurisdiction to protect and enforce the rights of every person in this regard, on the digital space. 1st and 2nd Petitioners’ Submissions 19. The 1st and 2nd petitioner through Nzili and Sumbi Advocates filed submissions dated 14th November 2023 where the issues for determination were set out as: whether the petition falls within The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 4/23