(a) By blocking his application to be elected as Speaker of the 9th Parliament, the Respondent State violated his rights under Article 13 (1), (2) and (3) of the Charter; (b) By allowing the person elected as Speaker of the 9th Parliament to serve the entire term in the 9th Parliament without going through proper elections, the Respondent State degraded and discriminated against him and acted in contravention of Articles 2, 3, 5, 19 and 27 of the Charter; (c) The High Court decision dismissing his application for permission to commence judicial review in High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 554 of 2003 violated his rights under Article 7 of the Charter; (d) His imprisonment upon convidio~ by the High Court for querying the court's impartiality in Miscellaneous :C(vil Application No. 554. of 2003 violated his rights under Article 5, 6, 7 and 9(2) ofthe Charter; (e) The Chief Justice's inordinate delay in giving directions in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 amounts to viola,tion of his rights under Articles 3 and 7 of the Charter; (f) The courts decisions permitting a lawyer from private practice to interfere in his case by raising preliminary objections, and the courts' refusal to grant him permission to e;1.ppeal against that decision violated his rights under Articles 3 and 7 of the Charter. (g) The courts' refusal to hear his c~se in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 on the merits is in violation of Article 3 and 7 of the Charter; (h) The Court of Appeal's (i) failure to hear and determine the merits of Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008, and (ii) decision of 20 April 2012 effectively dismissing some of the grounds of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 266 of2008 without hearing him on the merits thereof are in violation of Article 3 and 7 of the Charter; (i) The Supreme Court's act of dismissing his Petition No. 2 of 2012 on preliminary objections and without hearing him on the merits of the petition amounts to violation of his rights under Article 3 and 7 of the Charter;