players. Suffice to say that, in my view, it does not appear to be proper for the petitioner to be required to enter into a joint venture with KBC as a condition precedent to its being permitted to broadcast on the digital platform. 72. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that not only is KBC giving preferential treatment to the Interested Party by allowing it to broadcast on the digital platform, but it is also permitting it, through GoTV, to sell locked set-top boxes which can only receive content from GoTV. The petitioner views this as a violation of the right of the pubic to freedom of information. 73. I have noted that none of the respondents or the Interested Party have responded to this contention by the petitioner. In the ICT Sector Policy Guidelines, it is stated that the policy objectives include ‘encouraging the growth of a broadcasting industry that is efficient, competitive and responsive to audience needs….’ The Kenya Information and Communication Act requires that the licence issued to a signal distributor will require, among other things, that a signal distributor: (d) provide an open network that is interoperable with other signal distribution networks. 74. If it is indeed the case, as alleged by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents, that KBC and the Interested Party through their joint venture, GoTV, are providing locked set-top boxes that limit the consumer to content from only one provider, then they are not only in breach of the policy guidelines and the statutory requirements, but are also limiting the right of the public to receive information under Article 33. 75. Their actions cannot, in my view, be ‘responsive to audience needs’, and would limit the information available to consumers to only what the provider of the locked set-top boxes is willing to provide. This would, in turn, be a limitation of the right to freedom of expression, which CCK and KBC in accordance with the ICT Sector Policy Guidelines and the law, would be expected to foster rather than inhibit. Disposition 76. From the foregoing, it is clear that there has been no failing by the 1 st respondent as the industry regulator to adequately perform its statutory mandate given the orders of the court which are currently in force and which restrain it from issuing any licences under the Kenya Information and Communications Act, and to that extent, this petition must fail. With regard to the 2nd respondent and the issue of broadcasting on the digital platform on the same terms as the Interested Party, though I find it unjustified, I have expressed the limitation of the court with regard to this aspect of the matter, which in my view can best be resolved through consultation between the parties to this dispute and other industry players. 77. In the circumstances, I am unable to issue any of the orders sought by the petitioner. With regard to the orders that the petitioner is seeking against the CCK, such matters are already the subject of the Media Owners and Magic Radio case which are still pending before Lenaola, J, and it would be in its interest to be enjoined in the matters, if it is not yet a party, so that it can agitate its claim before the court. 78. I do find and hold, however, that the sale to consumers of locked set-top boxes limits the rights of the public under Article 33 of the Constitution, is nor in conformity with the provisions of the governing law and violates the stated government policy with regard to information and communication as contained in the ICT Sector Policy Guidelines. I therefore direct that such set-top boxes as may be sold to consumers be open and operable between networks. Whatever decision will emanate from the court with regard to the issuance of broadcast licences now pending before the court, the body charged with issuance of such licences must ensure that the principles of fairness, equity and responsiveness to audience needs are respected.