he was able to access the courts and therefore was given equal protection of the law?" 24 79. In Meldrum the Commission also reiterated the burden incumbent on Complainants in alleging violations of Article 3: In order for a parhJ therefore to establish a successful claim under Article 3 (2) of the Charter, it should show that the Respondent State had not given the Complainant the same treatment it accorded to the others. Or that, the Respondent State had accorded favourable treatment to others in the same position as the Complainant. 25 80. The Commission notes that the Complainant made factual assertions to the effect that his right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law were violated without demonstrating tangible grounds for that conclusion. The Commission thus recalls the judgements of the African Court in Kemboge v Tanzania 26 and Evarist v Tanzania 27 reiterating the trite principle that allegations of the violation of the right to equal protection,of the law require substantiation. 81. The Commission notes that whilst ' the Complainant ,alleges that . there was differential treatment in the way the law was applied, this simply was not the case. Firstly, the Complainant did in fact contest in the election to be the Speaker of Parliament on the 9th of January 2003 as has already been established above. His claims of unequal application of the law in the decl_a ration of Mr. Francis Kaparo as Speaker of Parliame!lt are unfounded. SecondJy, the aJleged refusal or blockade of his bid to be the Speaker of Parlia~ent did not violate his rights under Article 3 because there was simply no election of a Speaker of Parliament on the 18 th of February 2003, no other person contested to be the Speaker on that date. The Complainant was therefore not prejudiced by the general application of the law, in fact admitting his bid to cont~st-as ,S peaker on that date would have accorded him preferential treatment by the law and render him unequal to others. 82. The Complainant contends that the Courts applied the law selectively to deny him its protections. The Commission notes that the High Court in Nairobi HC Misc Application No.554 of 2003, did not decide on the merits as alleged but simply decided on the Application for leave to judicially review, finding that it had no jurisdiction to order judicial review against parliament. The Commission notes that the Court did not declare the 9th of January Proceedings constitutional on the merits but simply clarified, as obiter, that prorogation did not amount to permanent dissolution of the house and nullification of its proceedings as alleged but simply adjournment. The Commission is not convinced that the Nairobi HIGH Court in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.22 of 2004 violated the Complaina ' ts 1\,/4~ ;: _c;,,U -~e, 1-H:T Af?/"I "1,\,0 24 Meldrum (2004) para 95 //)~ 2s Meldrum (2004) para 101 ,1/:1 ~ (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 369 27 (merits) (2018) 2 AfCLR 402 26 .., r .(\~\1 \' ,. / LJ~ \ \ l!l r I I ~i' - ;;;1J I": n ~ ~'i "l?tCM~ltl<- £1:n'.l'f~ ~ ~~¥ -....;;;;;;=-;;:::;•...' "-'