Article 56 of the Charter except the complaint relating to imprisonment for contempt of court. MERITS Argument of the Complainant 63. The Complainant alleges that: A. By refusing to place his application to be elected speaker on the 18 th of February 2003, at what he alleges to have been the first time the parliament was lawfully constituted, the Respondent State: i. Discriminated against him contrary to the\African Charter; 11. Subjected him to psychological torture and degrading treatment not befitting his status as advocate and contrary to Article 5 of the Charter as read with Article of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers; iii. Curtailed his civil and political rights enshrined in Articles 13(1), (2) and (3) of the Charter and; 1v. Subverting h~s social-economic rights and right to development co;11trary to Articles 22 and 24 of the i\.frican Charter an B. By declaring Mr: Francis Kaparo as the Speaker of the 9th National Assembly on the 9th ofJanuary 2003, without going through elections before a fully composed and.f.u lly constituted National Assembly, the Respondent State discriminated aga,i~st him contr~ry to Article 3 of the African Charter; C. By systematically and methodologically blocking valid presentation of his application seeking to be elected as speaker before a properly composed and constituted 9th parliament on the 18 th of February 2003, the Respondent State discriminated against him contrary to Article 3 of the Charter and subjected him to unlawful treatment and mental torture within the meaning of Article l of the Convention Against Torture; D. The conduct of the national courts was incompatible with the charter. He raises issue with the different proceedings and judgments in the domestic courts of the Respondent States which are all detailed below: i. Nairobi HC Misc Application No.554 of 2003- His rights under Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the Charter were violated in the court held brief for the Respondnent State by finding that the Parliamentary proceedings of the 9th of January 2003 were constitutional. The Complainant alleges that the court's decision on the merits a .~"'ON ::.m:rt :--....._~ , Hl/h/t,,"'' on the plausibility of his case was contrary to the rules ~ f riat:uf'a'141v,q;~ justice. He further alleges that the Court did not c trsid .~ «-,~ lb\~:,~~-~ J1 submissions and lacked good faith. In the alternative he : \::,~~~C~~ 4 ~1CAIH~~;~