with disabilities and need for amenities to be put in place to enhance free elections; and the need for a special vote. It was also argued that where the stations are found not to be suitable for purposes of elections, the Respondent had power to relocate the station to other premises. On the issue of assisted voting, counsel argued that in terms of Section 60 (2)(ii) of The Electoral Act, it was not mandatory to insist that persons with disabilities be assisted. The facility was only available where a voter so requested. It was argued that, the insistence by the Respondent to provide assistance to persons with disabilities in the exercise of their franchise, amounts to the Respondent taking away their right to vote with dignity. In his concluding arguments counsel stated that discrimination had been established and that liability was not denied by the Respondent. In the Respondent's submissions, counsel for the Respondent began by restating the Petitioner's claim as endorsed in the petition. She went on to argue that in terms of Article 23 of the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the State to fulfill the obligations concerning the rights of citizens. It was argued that the Respondent had not in any way treated persons with disabilities differently from other persons. The Respondent had, in this respect, stretched its constitutional mandate by meeting the needs of the organization's members. She went on to justify this by highlighting amendments to the law initiated by the Respondent to address the needs of the Petitioner and the organization's members. On the issue of inaccessibility to the stations, counsel argued that the Respondent could not make adjustments to the properties to cater for ramps because they did not belong to it. Further, that relocating polling stations located in inaccessible premises would lead to disenfranchising citizens. On the issue of provision for a tactile ballot guide, counsel argued that the same had been provided and therefore, the Respondent has met its obligations in this respect. She went on to discredit the evidence contained in exhibit "SB6? to the affidavit in support on the ground that the audits were done only in twenty stations out of six thousand four hundred and fifty-six stations in the country. In concluding her submissions, counsel argued that if this Court makes an order to compel the Respondent to formulate a budget to incorporate the needs of the Petitioner, it would amount to the Court usurping the constitutional powers of the Respondent. This she argued, is on account of Respondent's autonomy as enshired in the constitution. I have considered the Petition, affidavit evidence and the arguments by counsel. It is clear from the evidence presented before this Court that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner and indeed the other members of the organization have a right to vote as stipulated by Article 75 of the Constitution. What is in dispute is whether or not the Petitioner and members of the organization have been discriminated against by the Respondent in pursuit of the exercise of the right to vote. This is the issue that I have to determine in this matter. In articulating the petition the Petitioner has made a number of allegations in respect of the alleged discrimination. Before I consider these allegations and determine whether or not they have been established it is important that I initially review the evidence tender before this Court. The Petitioner relied upon exhibits "SB1? to "SB12? in the affidavit in support. Emphasis being made on exhibit "SB6? which is a report the orgainsation submitted to the Respondent after it conducted an audit at various stations. The report is titled, Disability Access Audit: Findings and Recommendations our suggestion for Action to Improve Accessibility Building/Premises. A perusal of the report reveals that it lends credence to the allegations made by PW in his evidence because it highlights the short comings in the facilities offered at the stations by the Respondent as they related to persons with disabilities. This is, with respect, to lack of proper access to amenities in some of the stations to enable the orgainsation's members exercise their right to vote