74 gravity must be handled carefully: investigations be thoroughly carried out and those culpable to be brought to book. Once that happens, then the criminal convictions can be used to mount challenges like the one before this Court. 3.5.4.15 It is not the role of the IEBC to ensure the authenticity of degree certificates, so long as certified copies of the same are produced, and where the degree is foreign, it is accompanied by a certificate of authentication of the issuing body by the Commission for University Education (Regulation 47, Elections (General) Regulations, 2012). In Gideon Keya & Another v Wavinya Ndeti & Others, Machakos High Court Judicial Review No. 2 of 2022, the Court ruled: [116] It is therefore clear that the powers to recognize and equate degrees, diplomas and certificates rests with the 3rd Respondent (Commission for University Education). In undertaking its mandate, it is required to undertake or cause to be undertaken, regular inspections, monitoring and evaluation of universities. In this case the 3rd Respondent confirmed that the institutions from which the 1st Respondent obtained her degrees and certifications are recognized. [117] The applicants have not cited before me any statute that compels the 2nd Respondent to make a decision as regards the recognition or equation of university degrees. They have however cited Regulation 47 of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012…. [118] With due respect I cannot read into the said regulation any power conferred upon the 2nd Respondent (Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission) to recognize or equate university degrees. I therefore associate myself with the decision of Mrima J. in Petition E321 of 2022, Dennis Gakuu Wahome vs The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Others and find that the 2nd Respondent has no power to recognize or equate university degrees and therefore cannot be compelled to investigate the authenticity of a university degree that is already recognized by the 3rd Respondent. 3.5.5 Resignation of Public Servants Seeking Elective Posts 3.5.5.1 The law regulating the participation of civil servants in politics is set out in, inter alia, the Constitution; Elections Act, 2011; Political Parties Act; Public Officer Ethics Act, 2003; and Leadership and Integrity Act, 2012. The thread that runs across all these laws is the restriction of civil servants from engaging in activities that may compromise the political neutrality of the public service (Frederick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 4 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 6 of 2014). Public servants who wish to contest for an elective position must resign from, or have vacated, the public service at least six months prior to the date of a general election (s 43(5), Elections Act, 2011). 3.5.5.2 A public servant who wishes to contest in a by-election, on the other hand, is required to resign from public office within 7 days of the declaration of a vacancy in the office that is the subject of the by-election (s 43(5A), Elections Act, 2011). The rationale for the shorter resignation period in the case of by-elections lies in the unpredictability of the circumstances (death, resignation, etc) that give rise to the need to hold a by-election. 3.5.5.3 Accordingly, Parliament cannot enact a law requiring candidates for by-elections to resign from public office long before the by-election, as such, a law would be an unreasonable and unjustifiable restriction on political rights. In Union of Civil Servants & 2 Others v IEBC & Another, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 281 of 2014, the petitioners challenged a statutory requirement to resign from public service within seven months as a pre-condition for participating in a by-election, on the ground that the circumstances leading to a by-election BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION