111. As for the list of returning officers who the Applicants allege were appointed to serve as returning officers while they were still active members of the ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi, the Court observes that this issue was also in contention between the Parties during the litigation at domestic level. Specifically, the Court of Appeal dealt with this matter in its judgment from pages 50 to 53. In its findings, the Court of Appeal held that the evidence by the Applicants “fell short of reliability …” and dismissed the Applicant’s claims. Given this clear finding on an evidential matter by the Court of Appeal, the Court is constrained in interfering with the same. This is because it, ordinarily, does not engage in exhaustive factual analyses which are best conducted by domestic courts.34 112. Overall, and in light of the above, the Court finds that section 7(1) of the NEA does not violate Article 13(1) of the Charter. 113. The Court also finds that sections 7(2) and 7(3) violate the Charter. This is because these provisions do not contain any indication of the positions in the public service that public servants must occupy to be appointed returning officers or even an indication as to the qualifications that they must possess before they can be appointed as returning officers. ii. Allegations relating to the right to equality and equal protection before the law 114. The Applicants also challenge the fact that under sections 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the NEA only persons employed in the public service can serve as returning officers. According to the Applicants, these provisions restrict the appointment of returning officers thereby “… disallowing others from participating in public affairs by being allowed to have a chance to be appointed to various leadership positions”. The Applicants submit that restricting the appointment of returning officers to civil servants only violates Article 3 of the Charter. 34 Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, §§ 52-53. 31