65 Article 25 should be based on objective and reasonable criteria e.g., a higher age for election or appointment to particular offices than for exercising the right to vote. But, these rights may not be suspended or excluded except on grounds which are established by law and which are objective and reasonable (General Comment 25, UN Committee on Human Rights para 4; and (Ekuru Aukot v IEBC & 3 Others, Petition 471 of 2017). 3.5.1.2 The law on suitability and eligibility of candidates for elective public offices is set out in, inter alia, the Constitution; Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2011; Elections Act, 2011; IEBC Act, 2011; Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003; and Political Parties Act, 2011. The Constitution requires persons holding public office, whether appointive or elective, to meet certain minimum thresholds of personal integrity and probity. In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 229 of 2012, the Court explained this constitutional requirement as follows: Kenyans were very clear in their intentions when they entrenched Chapter Six and Article 73 in the Constitution. They were singularly aware that the Constitution has other values such as the presumption of innocence until one is proved guilty. Yet, Kenyans were singularly desirous of cleaning up our politics and governance structures by insisting on high standards of personal integrity among those seeking to govern us or hold public office. They intended that Chapter Six and Article 73 will be enforced in the spirit in which they included them in the Constitution. The people of Kenya did not intend that these provisions on integrity and suitability for public offices be merely suggestions, superfluous or ornamental; they did not intend to include these provisions as lofty aspirations. Kenyans intended that the provisions on integrity and suitability for office for public and State office[r]s should have substantive bite. In short, the people of Kenya intended that the provisions on integrity of our leaders and public officers will be enforced and implemented. 3.5.1.3 The Court of Appeal ultimately reversed the above decision on the question of unsuitability or unfitness of a person to hold State or Public Office on grounds of lack of integrity. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court is entitled to conduct a review of appointments to State or Public Office to determine the procedural soundness as well as the appointment decision itself to determine if it meets the constitutional threshold. However, such review by the court is not an appeal over the opinion nor does it amount to a ‘merit review’ of the decision of the appointing body. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court misapplied the rationality test in adopting a standard of review antithetic to the doctrine of separation of powers (Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012). 3.5.1.4 A person is suitable to hold public office if there are no serious unresolved questions about his or her honesty, financial probity, scrupulousness, fairness, reputation, soundness of moral judgment or commitment to the national values enumerated in the Constitution (International Centre for Policy and Conflict & 5 Others v Attorney General & 5 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 552 of 2012; and Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Attorney General & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 229 of 2012). In addition, a person who has been dismissed or otherwise removed from office for contravention of the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution is disqualified from holding any other State office (Article 75(3) of the Constitution). 3.5.1.5 A person is eligible to hold public office, on the other hand, if he or she holds the minimum educational, technical or professional qualifications set out in the Constitution or any other applicable law. Further, a person who is convicted of an offence under the Election Offences BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION