are state organs is not in dispute. Accordingly, they are under the obligation to furnish a citizen with information held by them under the said provision. 57. However, before the Court can order that the information be furnished, it is my view that the applicant ought to adduce evidence showing that the information sought by the applicant is in possession of the Respondent. In Nairobi Law Monthly vs. Kenya Electricity Generating Company & Others case (supra), Mumbi, J held that “in order to enforce this right, a citizen claiming a right to access information must not only show that the information is held by the person from whom it is claimed; the citizen must go further and show that the information sought is required for the exercise or protection of another right.” Although Mumbi, J’s comments were directed at Article 35(1)(b), it is my view that the first part of the learner’s Judge’s pronouncement that the applicant must prove that the information is held by the person from whom it is claimed applies both to the State and to another person. 58. Once the information is proved to be in possession of the Respondent, it is my view that the burden shifts to the Respondent to show why the said information ought not to be disclosed to the applicant. In other words a basis ought to be laid for the State to be directed to furnish the required information and that basis in my view is provided by the Constitution itself that the State is holding the information. As stated in General Comments on the Covenant, it is for the State party to demonstrate the legal basis for any restrictions imposed on the freedom of expression and if with regard to a particular State party, the Committee has to consider whether a particular restriction is imposed by law, the State party should provide details of the law and of actions that fall within the scope of the law. 59. I associate myself with the holding of Mumbi, J in Nairobi Law Monthly vs. Kenya Electricity Generating Company & Others case (supra) that “the reasons for non-disclosure must relate to a legitimate aim; disclosure must be such as would threaten or cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim; and the harm to the legitimate aim must be greater than and override the public interest in disclosure of the information sought. It is recognised that national security, defence, public or individual safety, commercial interests and the integrity of government decision making processes are legitimate aims which may justify non-disclosure of information.” 60. Apart from that it is now trite that before an applicant seeks orders from the Court compelling the Respondent to give him access to certain information, he must show that the said information was requested for. As was held in Charles Omanga & 8 Others vs. Attorney General and Another [2004] eKLR: “This case concerns Article 35(1). The petitioner argues that this provision is self-propelling and that a person is entitled to apply to the court directly for such information to be given. In my view, this is the wrong approach. Article 35 is part of the Bill of Rights and any person is entitled to enforce these rights under Article 22(1) claiming, “that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.”[Emphasis mine] How is the right to information threatened unless a person has been requested and has been denied the information? A person moving the court to enforce fundamental rights and freedoms must show that the rights sought to be enforced is threatened or violated and that is why in the case of Kenya Society for the Mentally Handicapped (KSMH) v Attorney General and Others Nairobi Petition No. 155A of 2011 (Unreported), the court stated that, “[43] I am not inclined to grant…the application as the Petitioner has not