ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested regulatory duties – or do so in a slipshod manner – it requires the Court to engage in heightened scrutiny as to whether the actions that are done in the absence of that framework comply with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. 104. In this case it was submitted that the Respondent in implementing the IPPMS failed to effectively and meaningfully conduct public participation among the marginalized and indigenous groups who are directly impacted through violation of their rights. It was submitted that meaningful participation has been emphasized by African Commission of People and human rights case Centre for Minority Development Kenya and Minority Right Group International on behalf of the Endorois Welfare Counsel -vsKenya [2009] ACHPR. 105. In appropriate circumstances, it was submitted that the courts have considered extent of actions and therefore rejecting the massive changes and requiring that they are postponed until after elections when the elections are close by. The courts have further protected the interests of the public in exercising their freedom to information as a direct result public participation that involves the dissemination of information for decision making, especially when there is no real urgency or hurry. In this regard reference was made to Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek) vs. Minister for Information & Communications & 2 Others [2013] eKLR. 106. In this case the Court was urged to take the law in the COFEK case into consideration as the contended failures of the Respondents to conduct meaningful and effective public participation in the implementation of the IPPMS, a process having farreaching ramifications to the citizenry than digital migration as the constitution permeates all spheres of public life, comes at a time when the country is preparing for nominations in April 2022. 107. As regards public participation the Petitioners relied on Doctors for Life International vs. Speaker of the National Assembly and Others CCT 12/05 and it was submitted that the right to vote is an extension of an individual’s right of selfdetermination in that a sovereign individual who agrees to join the civilization should, by right of being a human sovereign, have the right to affect the path the civilization takes that was created by the individual signing the to be Kenyans. Excluding minorities and pastoralists or the poor from participating in the party primaries, is instrumental in the rationalization, normalization, moralization, of the exclusion of other Kenyans. In this case, the evidence of purported IPPMS sensitization produced by the 2nd Respondent does not in any way indicate involvement of the marginalized communities, being an admission of lack of public participation. 108. It was the Petitioners’ case that this Petition intervenes on behalf of most Kenyans, indicate that many citizens are grieved by an unfortunate turn of political and legal events that have over time systemically and institutionally discriminated and disenfranchised marginalized communities within the meaning of Article 260 of the Constitution the poor move no closer to the exercise of full citizenship through patron-client relationships that domesticate them and channel their important roles in electoral processes toward the interests of others. On the political patronage ladder the poor and marginalized remain poor. It moves the marginalized groups’ problems out of sight if they do not have political representation. In the Petitioners’ submissions, the adoption of the IPPMS system without public publication and sensitization enables systemic marginalization of a key segment of the population as data in court show no engagement to these populations. The digital registration has a huge impact on the community and violation of their political rights since the 2nd Respondent is yet to set up a framework to meet its obligations under Article 10, Article 56, and 91 (e) of the Constitution. 109. On the issue of costs, it was submitted that since it is trite law that costs follow the event the costs of this Petition should be borne by the Respondents. 1st and 3rd Respondents’ Case 110. The 1st and 3rd Respondents filed the following grounds of opposition: 1. THAT the Application is merely an attempt by the Intended Interested parties to revive the petitioners’ Application dated 18th February, 2022 and obtain orders already denied by this Honourable court. 2. THAT the Applicants have not demonstrated that their purported interests will not be properly and accurately articulated unless they are enjoined in the proceedings to defend their cause. 3. THAT as correctly pointed out by the petitioners at paragraph 8 of the petition, the instant petition is a public interest case and not a claim for reliefs in personam. The judgment to be rendered by this Honourable court will be a judgement in http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 12/29