J . Competent authorities should not en.act provisions which would limit the exercise of this freedom . The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights gu~ranteed by the constitution and international human rights standards. 111. The Commission notes that the Complainant's allegations primarily concern the interpretation of sub-article 1 of the right to participate freely in the government of his choice. Accordingly, the Commission recalls that the Complainant indeed freely participated in the elections of a Speaker of Parliament conducted on the 9th of January 2003. The Commission has demonstrated above that the Complainant's contention that he was entitled to a fresh election for Speaker on the 18 th of February 2003 is without merit. A corollary of this is that no violation of Article 13 arises from there not being an election for Speaker on that date. To allow the Complainant to appoint his own date to contest in the election of the Speaker of Parliament would have amounted to nuUifying the will of this fellow Kenyans expressed on the 9th of January'. To quote the Commission's decision in Constitutional Rights Project and Another v Nigeria that: "To participate freely in government entails, among other things, the right to vote for the representative of one's choice. An inevitable corollanJ of this right zs that the results of the free expression of the will of the voters are respected; otherwise, the right to vote freely is meaningless. "43 112. The Commission therefore finds that Mr. Ngoge enjoyed the right to participate freely in the government of his country. The Commission does not find a violation of Article 13 of the Charter. Alleged violations of Article 19, 22 and 24 of the Charter 113. The Complainantalleg.es that the Respondent has violated his rights under Article 19,22 and 24 of the Charter inby barring him from practicing law, winding 44 He alleges that the Respondent State has up his Law firm and auctioning it blocked him from practicing his trade in violation of his socio-economic rights. off. 114. At the outset, the Commission should point out that the facts upon which these allegations are based are outside of the scope of issues on which the original complaint was based. The Commission notes that the Complainant may not enlist new matters at such a late stage of the proceedings especially given the specific procedural requirements an allegation ought to meet prior to being considered on the merits. Specifically, the Commission notes that this allegation, being adopted at this stage would have skipped admissibility examinations, chief amongst them Article 56(5) on the exhaustion of local remedies. In addition, the Commission notes further that the facts giving rise to this allegation form part of a diffe~ -.----.. Communication, being Case number 458 of 2013 as the Complainant all ,-~ ~~1r:t "' <I,\, #;;"' 43 Para 50 44 Complainant's submissions, page 44 and 45 <;<- .,,,,,. 0.() 1i,:; p,~~;,'(~ . )', I "'JI\ '. .-.'(")0 ~ ~ \ff.. . fl3~ ~ "'O,i, W;c_t\ Cj - , , ~~ c,1• -'l"1?1cA1N~ ~.61':l' ,,;:£: l:T OE5 ~_:,,