administrative or financial autonomy, and manifestly lacking confidence from political stakeholders based on its reform process. 228. However, considering the manifest imbalance of the number of Chairpersons of the Local electoral commissions proposed by the ruling party, following Bureau elections based on the previous law when the electoral body at the Local levels was still imbalanced in favour of the Government, the Court finds Respondent State has not fully complied with Article 17 of the ACDEG the ECOWAS that the and 3 of Democracy Protocol, and has therefore violated these provisions. 229. In addition, the Court has considered the absence of a mechanism to ensure that the process of nomination of members of the electoral body by political parties, especially opposition parties, as well as CSOs, are driven by those entities. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not fully complied with its obligations to ensure public affairs and public trust and transparency effective citizens’ participation prescribed by Articles 3(7), 3(8) and in the management in democratic 13 of the ACDEG, processes of as nor with its obligation to ensure that the electoral body has the confidence of all the political actors, as prescribed by Article 3 of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent State has violated these provisions. C. Alleged violation of the right to participate freely in government and of the right to equal protection of the law 230. The Applicants contend that independent candidates are not represented in the composition of the electoral body, whereas candidates from political parties are represented in the Central Electoral Commission and in the electoral bodies at the Local levels. Therefore, the Applicants claim that the impugned law violates the rights of independent candidates to freely participate in the government of their country as well as their right to have equal access to the public services of their country. 50