66 Act, is not eligible for election or nomination in an election for a period of five years following the date of conviction (s 24(3), Election Offences Act, 2016). 3.5.1.6 Since suitability and eligibility refer to different concepts, a person may be eligible, that is technically or professionally qualified, but unsuitable to hold public office. The mere fact that a nominee or candidate is qualified to hold a public office does not, therefore, necessarily mean that the nominee or candidate is also suitable to hold that office. 3.5.1.7 Further, the mere fact that a nominee or candidate was adjudged to be a person of integrity or suitable to hold public office at a particular date, does not preclude inquiries as to their suitability to hold public office at a subsequent date (Godfrey Mwaki Kimathi & 2 Others v Jubilee Alliance Party & 3 Others, Nairobi High Court Petitions Nos. 102 and 145 of 2015). Conversely, the mere fact that a nominee or candidate was adjudged as lacking integrity or unsuitable to hold public office at a particular date in the past does not necessarily bar the person from holding public office at a future date, if the circumstances have changed (Godfrey Mwaki Kimathi & 2 Others v Jubilee Alliance Party & 3 Others, Nairobi High Court Petitions No. 102 and 145 of 2015). 3.5.1.8 A person cannot be disqualified from participating in an election on grounds of unsuitability or ineligibility unless all possibility of appeal or review of the decision on unsuitability or ineligibility has been exhausted (Article 99(3) of the Constitution; and Commission on Administrative Justice v John Ndirangu Kariuki & IEBC, Constitutional Petition No. 408 of 2013; and Republic v IEBC & Another Ex Parte Paul Karungo Thang’wa Judicial Review No 2 of 2022 (unreported)). Moreover, a candidate cannot be ineligible or unsuitable to vie for an elective position merely because they are adversely mentioned in inconclusive reports and investigations. In Peter Gichuki King’ara v IEBC & 2 Others, Nyeri Election Petition No. 3 of 2013, the Court held as follows: rd …if the basis of the Petitioner’s allegations against the 3 Respondent are the diverse reports in which her ethics, integrity and morals have been questioned, would those reports constitute sufficient grounds, in the context of Article 91(1) of the Constitution, to deny her qualification for election as a member of National Assembly? Or could the rd 3 Respondent be disqualified under Article 99(2) of the Constitution from contesting for the seat of the member of National Assembly...?... it would be drastic and draconian, rd in the premises, to condemn the 3 Respondent on allegations which, for all intents and purposes, amount to felonies for which she has neither been investigated nor charged…The Constitution itself frowns at such a possibility; it provides that even if rd the 3 Respondent had been investigated and charged for all or any of the possible offences that could possibly ensue from those allegations, that in itself would not disqualify her candidacy for the electoral seat. Article 99(3) thereof suggests that she can only be disqualified if she has been convicted to serve a sentence of more than six months and all avenues for appeal or review of the conviction and sentence have been exhausted…This court cannot proceed as if the allegations on the 3rd Respondent’s morals and integrity have been proved. Neither rd can it turn itself into an investigative agency to determine the 3 Respondent’s criminal culpability in the light of the allegations raised against her. That should be left to the investigative agencies... 3.5.1.9 The conduct of an inquiry into the suitability and eligibility of nominees and candidates for public office is an essential requirement for the enforcement of Chapter Six of the Constitution (International Centre for Policy and Conflict & 5 Others v Attorney General & 5 Others, Nairobi BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION