Geoffrey Andare v Attorney General & 2 others [2016] eKLR 29(b) of the Kenya Information and Communication Act Cap 411A laws of Kenya. As a result, criminal charges were preferred against him in Milimani Criminal Case No 610 of 2015. Cpl. Chumba avers that this petition has therefore been filed in bad faith, is misconceived and an abuse of the court process, and is meant to defeat the cause of justice. 43. It is the DPP’s case therefore that he independently reviewed and analyzed the evidence contained in the investigations file compiled by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations including the witness statements, documentary exhibits and statements of the petitioner as required by the law. On the basis of this review and analysis, the DPP gave instructions to prosecute the petitioner. His decision to prosecute was informed by the sufficiency of evidence on record and the public interest, and not on any other considerations. 44. The DPP contended that the accuracy and correctness of the evidence or facts gathered in an investigation can only be assessed and tested by the trial court which is best equipped to deal with the quality and sufficiency of evidence gathered and properly adduced in support of charges. He had properly exercised the state powers of prosecution vested in him by the Constitution, and in the exercise of such powers, he is only subject to the Constitution and the law, does not require the consent of any person or authority, and is independent and not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority. It was his contention further that the High Court would be crossing into the line of the independence of the DPP if it descended into the arena of determining whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. 45. In his written submissions, the DPP argues that Article 24 and 25 of the Constitution allow for the limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms, and set out the rights and fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited, respectively. His submission is that the right to freedom of expression is not one of the rights that cannot be limited under Article 25. The DPP cites Article 24 (1) and the decision in Mutunga vs Republic (1986) KLR 167 to submit that constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual are subject to limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of these rights by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others, or the public interest. 46. The DPP agrees with the AG that freedom of expression of any person which is protected under Article 33 is also regulated by the same Article. Consequently, any person who exercises the freedom is required to do so in such a way that the rights of others are not violated. The DPP cites the decision of Onyancha J in John Ritho Kanogo & 2 Others vs Joseph Ngugi & Another Civil Suit No 589 of 2012 to submit that any person who exercises his freedom of expression in contravention of Article 33(3) may be called upon to account under the relevant statutes promulgated under the Constitution. 47. With respect to the petitioner’s claim that his continued prosecution will violate his rights under various Articles of the Constitution, the DPP argues that he has at all times exercised the state prosecutorial powers in accordance with the law and within other provisions of the Constitution. It is also his submission that the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated with particularity how these rights have been infringed and the damage suffered as required by the principles in Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Republic (1976-1980) 1KLR 1272 and Matiba vs AG (1990) KLR 666. 48. With regard to the petitioner’s prayer for an order barring his prosecution, the DPP argues that such an order is a discretionary remedy and is only available where a public body or official has acted in excess of its powers and requires the public body to cease from performing a certain http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 8/20