the NEA which they impugn, in the main, the Applicants are alleging a violation of their right to freely participate in the government of their country through two principal means: first, in the appointment of the Director of the Electoral Commission (section 6(1) NEA); and second, in the manner in which returning officers are appointed (sections 7(1), 7(2), 7(3) of the NEA). The Applicants have also alleged a violation of their right to nondiscrimination. The Court will thus assess the alleged violation of the Applicants’ rights under the earlier referred to heads. A. Alleged violations due to the manner in which the Director of Elections is appointed 63. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State has violated their right to participate in the government of their country contrary to Article 13(1) of the Charter and also their right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law contrary to Article 3 of the Charter. The Applicants have also pleaded provisions of the ICCPR and the UDHR which correspond to Articles 13(1) and 3 of the Charter. i. Allegations relating to the right to participate in the government of one’s country 64. The Applicants submit that section 6(1) of the NEA violates the Charter because the Director of Elections is appointed by the President who is the Chairperson of the ruling party and also among the contestants in elections. This manner of appointing the Director of Elections, the Applicants contend, “raises the question of impartiality, independence of Commission and the credibility of the elections process and results”. The Applicants point out that the President “gets recommendations from the Commission for the appointment of the Director of Elections while the Commission itself was in the first place appointed by the President himself, who is also a potential candidate in the elections.” They submit that section 6(1) “lacks the criteria for the appointment of the Director of Elections and thus, makes it wide, broad and vague, and subject to abuse”. 18