responses on the day of the proceedings for various reasons, which include power cuts, which affected many parts of the country. It therefore became necessary to upload the data into a giant sever. COPAC developed software application known as CODACA, specifically for this purpose. Although technical problems were encountered in the initial stages, all the data was successfully uploaded. 14. Sitting of Thematic Committees The Thematic Committees had the mandate to analyse the data that came from outreach. 425 participants constituted the Thematic Committees. Of this figure, 30% were Members of Parliament and 70% of the membership came from civil society. A decision was also made to allocate 30 and 17 slots to small political parties and Chiefs respectively. During the sitting of these Thematic Committees disagreements arose on the methodology to be adopted in analysing the data. Specifically, some were in favour of using the “quantitative method”, which entailed using the number of wards in which an issue was mentioned, as a measurement of the popularity of that issue, while others preferred the “qualitative method”, which entailed using other parameters such as the meeting atmosphere and the spread of acceptability of the issue across all provinces. An agreement was then reached to use both methods in analysing the data. The major outcome of the Thematic Committees was the production of Ward, District, Provincial and the National Statistical Reports. 15. Interpretation of statistics Prior to the commencement of outreach, the Select Committee resolved to have specific number of meetings in each ward in order to ensure uniformity and fairness in reaching out to the people across the country. The resolution was to the effect that three meetings were to be held per ward in rural areas while one meeting was to be held per ward in urban areas. The difference in the number of meetings between urban and rural areas was motivated by the fact that most rural wards are vast and people would travel long distances to attend a meeting at a central venue in the ward. However, there were more than three meetings per ward in some rural districts and more than one meeting in some urban wards for various reasons. Because of the differences in the number of meetings held per each ward throughout the country, it was agreed that the ward would be used as the unit of analysis as opposed to the meeting. The percentages generated in the statistical reports are based on the number of wards in which an issue was mentioned out of the total number of wards. It therefore gives a general indication of the views which came out of the public consultative process. Given the fact that this was not a scientific study, the Select Committee resolved that both the statistics (quantitative) and qualitative outcomes (for example meeting atmosphere and others) must be taken into account in deciding what would eventually go into the constitution. The interpretation of these statistics therefore has to take into account these limitations in methodology. Whilst a high frequency was a general guide that in itself was not the sole 16 The Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) Report to Parliament, February 2013