79 ceased to be a member of the County Assembly, the term of the County Assembly having come to an end, the decision demonstrates the possibility that petitions on qualification/eligibility can still be brought outside the EDR process timelines. 3.5.7 Emerging Issues on Eligibility and Qualifications 3.5.7.1 There appears to be a lack of clarity on the interpretation and application of Chapter Six of the Constitution in relation to persons seeking elective positions. While Article 75(3) of the Constitution provides that a person who is removed from office for violating Articles 76, 77 and 78(2) of the Constitution is ineligible from holding any other state office, and Articles 99(2)(h) and 193(2)(g) provides for disqualifications of those found to have misused or abused any state or public office, Articles 99(3) and 199(3) provide that the disqualification does not attach until all possibility of appeal or review is exhausted (Commission on Administrative Justice v John Ndirangu Kariuki & IEBC, Constitutional Petition No. 408 of 2013). 3.5.7.2 The Supreme Court had been approached to render an advisory opinion in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; IEBC & 16 Others (Interested Parties), Supreme Court Advisory Opinion Reference No. 1 of 2017. The applicant sought a purposive interpretation of Articles 38, 50, 99, 137, 180 and 193 of the Constitution – specifically in the context of the affairs of political parties – citing the apparent contradiction, lack of clarity and/or guidance in High Court and Court of Appeal decisions on the place of Chapter Six of the Constitution. More so with regard to the leadership and integrity qualification of persons offering themselves to be elected or appointed to public service and/or offices. It was asserted that due to erroneous, restrictive, conflicting, inconsistent and incoherent interpretations of the Constitution by various institutions, there was need for guidance by the Supreme Court. The applicant’s concern was that, due to the resultant confused jurisprudence, the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution had been rendered ineffective and toothless. 3.5.7.3 The apex Court ruled that the issues framed were mainly issues of constitutional interpretation and the High Court was, therefore, the court of first instance with jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Constitution. Since two petitions had been filed in the High Court, the Court declined to exercise its advisory jurisdiction asserting: [84] We find that the Applicant’s averment at paragraph 13 of the Reference enumerating the alleged contradicting decisions of the Superior Courts, and at paragraph 15 of the Reference which provided that ‘this Court needs to clarify the fit and proper test for leadership under Chapter Six of the Constitution in light of the conflicting and confusing case law that has built up on this issue’, was an invitation to this Court to resolve the contradictory precedents. [85] This invitation cannot be extended to this Court while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 163 (6) of the Constitution. By its invitation therefore, the Applicant sought to create an original jurisdictional creature called ‘harmonization’ jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of our Constitution and the statutes. 3.5.7.4 In 2022, the IEBC, relying on Article 75(3) of the Constitution issued a press release indicating that persons who had been removed from office were ineligible to seek elective office. In Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 15 Others v Attorney General & 7 Others, Nairobi Petition E090 of 2022 (consolidated), the three-judge bench was urged to harmonise the conflicting decisions of the High Court on the interpretation of Chapter Six, including International Centre for Policy and Conflict & 5 Others v Attorney General & 5 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 552 of 2012, Luka Angaiya Lubwayo & Another v Gerald Otieno Kajwang & Another, Nairobi BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION