ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested Respondent sardonically finds it convenient to be apprehensive of the unfounded possibility of a party member who does not appear in the certified party list might find their way to the nomination. Based on legal advice, it was averred that it is the ill-timed implementation of IPPMS that is a recipe for chaos, anarchy and implementing a series of policies that discriminate, disenfranchise and exclude the exercise of Article 38. 76. In the Petitioner’s view, the IPPMS is distinct from other digital platforms as it impacts the exercise of sovereignty protected under Article 1(2) of the Constitution on the right to elect representatives being the substratum of the suit. Unlike all other digital government platforms, IPPMS deals with the right to self-determination which is the right through which all other rights flow including the right to good governance, democracy, free and open society. 77. It was deposed that only one out of twenty Kenyans have access to internet connectivity while the Survey report by Kenya National ICT by communication commission of Kenya and Kenya National Bureau of Statistics indicate that the highest engagement with internet connectivity is 15.5% for urban areas while the lowest is 2.7 % for the rural population with all provinces except Nairobi having less than 10% coverage. In further response the Interested Party in their own statistics indicate that 11,155 polling stations lack 2G and 4G network coverage. While not denying that the two systems are available for party registration, it was averred that the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Report indicate that disparity in political representation and participation in decision-making processes and generalized access to and use of political resources is a key contributor and indicator of marginalization of minority groups raised in the Petition. It was averred that the marginalized population constitute at least 20 per cent of the entire Kenyan population being a significant population to be left behind in the implementation of the IPPMS. 78. In the Petitioners’ view, unless the IPPMS is declared unconstitutional to the extent that it does not promote the fundamental right to political participation, the minorities and indigenous peoples in Kenya will continue to face discrimination and disenfranchisement hence it is in the interest of justice that this Petition be allowed. 79. In their submissions, the Petitioners reiterated the foregoing and contended that the major controversy presented by the Petition and Application before this Court is the violation of the exercise of political rights and the right to participate in governance, through the adopted modes of implementation of the IPPMS resulting in a major negative impact on minority and marginalized groups, in violation of their sovereignty and self-determination. According to the Petitioners, their concern is the danger posed by the manner and mode of implementation of the IPPMS perpetuates continued violation of their political rights protected under Article 38 and 56 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; including the imminent threat to their ability to participate in the formation of political parties, party primaries, and governance. To them, they have been locked out of participating in the party primaries owing to several challenges, including but not limited to, the lack of access to the internet, E-citizen IPPMS platform, inefficiencies and delays in the said system, inability of party members to resign and join other political parties, the closure of mass voter registration on the IPPMS by the Respondents. 80. The Court was urged to take judicial notice that Kenyans have decried foul the IPPMS for gross violation of privacy and political rights by finding themselves registered in political parties without consent or knowledge and that the chaos is exacerbated by the long and tedious uncertain process of deregistering from those parties, and only upon such successful deregistration can they finally join a party of their choice. In their view, the IPPMS system has authored confusion and uncertainty relating to party membership even for citizens with access to the internet while for the marginalized with no access to the internet, they have a muchlimited chance of succeeding in this system. 81. According to them, while the election timeline for parties to submit names of nomination aspirants has been extended to also limit the participation of party members in the nomination by closing the party registers, the nature of the law is one that party members are allowed to indiscriminately leave and join any political party of choice by will. 82. It was submitted that the marginalized communities have not found a guardian to protect them from those who will betray their rights to political participation and equal benefit and protection of the law which limits their ability to improve their livelihood. They, it was contended, have never been extended equal opportunity to participate in governance, and this exclusion bars their involvement in electing representation, holding office, and voting on political decisions. As a general matter, this discrimination has made the marginalized people inherent inferior subordinates to the majority and majoritarian interests. 83. According to them, the fundamental deprivation in citizenship is manifested first and above all the deprivation of a political space and right which make opinion significant and actions effective yet a democracy must provide citizens an opportunity to participate as well as to allow them to have control to reform undemocratic authority structures by opening space for the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 8/29