ational as her guardian and Next friend) & 11 others v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE/INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL POL and implied provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Section 22(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 provides:“22. (1) Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened. (2) In addition to a person acting in their own interest, court proceedings under clause (1) may be instituted by–– (a) a person acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name; (b) a person acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons; (c) a person acting in the public interest; or (d) an association acting in the interest of one or more of its members.” The 12th petitioner contends that the neglect, omission, refusal and failure of the police to conduct prompt, effective, proper and professional investigations into the eleven petitioners respective complaints violates their respective fundamental rights and freedoms under, inter alia, Articles 2, 21(1), 21(3), 27, 28, 29, 48, 50(1) and 53(1), (c) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Articles 1 to 8 (inclusive) and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 2, 3, 19, 34 and 39 of United Nations Conversation of Rights of the Child, Articles, 1, 2, 3, 16, and 27 of the African Charter on the rights and welfare of the child and Articles 2 to 7 (inclusive) and 18 of the African Charter on Human and people rights. The 12th petitioner further contends thepolice’s failure to act on petitioner’s complaints constitutes a grave abdication of statutory duty and express and implied provision inter alia:(a) sexual offences Act, 2006(Act No.3 of 2006) and (b) The Police Act(Cap.84) of the Laws of Kenya) The petitioners’ petition is supported by affidavit of Mutuma Kirima, a Social Worker employed by the 12th Petitioner, a Charitable Non-Governmental Organization, specializing in the promotion and protection of child rights and welfare within Meru County. The affidavit supports each and every petitioner’s claim as herein above analyzed and with supportive annextures MKI to MK8. The 1st and 3rdrespondents did not file any replying affidavit but grounds of opposition dated 6thMarch, 2013 alleging that the petition is incompetent, and bad in law as prayed against 1st and 3rdrespondents. The 1st and 3rdrespondents contended the petitioners have not identified the perpetrators by giving their names and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the prayers sought. The 1st and 3rdrespondents further contended that the petitioners have not demonstrated how the respondents were involved to the order sought herein and that the petitioners had not exhausted all available avenues and a such constitutional remediesshould be trivialized. The 1st and 3rd respondents did not file any affidavit to controvert the matters raised in the affidavit of the 12th petitioner and I take the same as unchallenged and to be truthful. The names of the perpetrators have clearly been given and their whereabouts disclosed, I therefore find no merits in the 1st and 3rdrespondents’ objection on the ground that the particulars and names of the perpetrators have not http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 7/17