(d) Whether the impugned decision was in contravention of Articles 4(2), 27, 38 and 91 of the Constitution. 129. I will deal with the issues in seriatim. Analysis and Determination: (a) Whether the threshold for seeking redress through a Constitutional Petition has been attained: 130. This issue was raised by the 3rd Interested Party herein, Katiba Institute. It contended that the consolidated Petitions did not raise any constitutional issues for determination. 131. In as much as the issue was not responded to by the rest of the parties, it is still worth consideration since it is on the jurisdiction of this Court. 132. Given the unique nature of Constitutional Petitions, Courts, since the pre-2010 constitutional era, have variously emphasized the need for clarity of pleadings. See: Anarita Karimi Njeru vs. Republic (1979) KLR 154. 133. Upon the promulgation of the Constitution in 2010, The Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (commonly referred to as ‘the Mutunga Rules’) were later on enacted. 134. These rules make provision for the contents of Petitions in Rule 10 thereof. 135. Further, the Supreme Court in Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others vs. Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR had the following on Constitutional Petitions: Although Article 22(1) of the Constitution gives every person the right to initiate proceedings claiming that a fundamental right or freedom has been denied, violated or infringed or threatened, a party invoking Judgment – Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petitions No. E211 of 2022 & JR No. E071 OF 2022 Page 24 of 59