The offence of bribery is provided for in section 68(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act thus: “ A person who, whether before or during an election with intent either directly or indirectly to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for any candidate, gives or provides or causes to be given or provided any money, gifts or other consideration to that other person, commits the offence of bribery and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding seventy two currency points or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both”. It is the complaint of the appellants that they were not given a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 28(1) of the Constitution. Article 28(1) of the Constitution provides: “28. Rights to a fair hearing (1) In the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial Court or tribunal established by law”. Counsel for the appellants submitted that a fair trial is a cornerstone in the determination of civil rights and obligations as envisaged in Article 28(1) of the Constitution. Further, Counsel cited Election Petitions Rule 4(8) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules 1996 which reads: “The petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts on which the Petition is based together with a list of any documents on which the Petitioner intends to rely” It is the contention of the appellants that the 2nd appellant was condemned on particulars of bribery not originally pleaded in the petition and supporting affidavits which was contrary to mandatory provisions of the law. It was further pointed out that a general allegation of bribery is contained in Paragraph 7(a) of the Petition and nothing in the two affidavits of the respondent. In counsel’s view, the 2nd appellant was left in the dark as to the allegations of bribery when he was served with the petition.