declarations to the effect that the 9th January proceedings were null and void, inter alia. The Court in that matter found merit in the preliminary objectives raised by the Clerk of the National Assembly who was named as the second respondent in that matter. The Court ,decided that: A. At the time of the election of the speaker, parliament was lawfully constituted as S56(2) of the constitution empowers the National assembly to act notwithstanding a vacancy (including a vacancy not filled when the assembly first meets after a general election);14 B. The President has discretion to appoint the date for the first sitting of Parliament;15 C. Having participated in the elections ~m the 9th of January 2003, the Complainant's suit was a frivolous .ab-4se of the court process;16 D. Parliamentary process is governed' 'by the S,taih.ding Orders and an intervention by the courts would contraveriefh~Bepai!'ation of powers;17 E. The Complainant's case had been overtaken by events as the Parliament had been dissolved .on the 22nd of October 2002;'1 8 F. The Complainant had not derp.onstrated any violation of his fundamental, rights specifically the allegation of discrimination as he participated in the election. 19 72. The Commission associates with th.ese findings whose fundamental effect is to put to rest the matter .of the legality of the January ? proceedings. The Commission notes with approval the court's finding that the absence of the nominated MPs did not preclude Parliament from acting as th~y were expressly empowered by the Constitution to do so and that in any event, the timing of the obligation to nominate •. the Nominated MPs was subject to the President's discretion. The Commission is convinced that the proceedings of the 9th of January were not unconstitutional.as. alleged by the Complainant. Being the sole basis of the Complainant's allegations ofviolations of his rights under the Charter, there is no reason to proceed. However, the Commission finds it prudent to clarify the meaning and scope' of the provisions alleged to have been violated by the Complainant. t. ·,_, Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Charter 14 Page 22,(Complainant's submissions, Vol.4 Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, page 1823) 15 Page 23 (Complainant's submissions, Vol.4 Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, page 1823) 16 Page 24 (Complainant's submissions, Vol.4 Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, page 1823) 17 Page 27 (Complainant's submissions, Vol.4 Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, page 1823) 18 Page 29 (Complainant's submissions, Vol.4 Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, page 1823) 19 Page 38(Complainant's submissions, Vol.4 Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, page 1823)