ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested manage the data of registered political parties in Kenya including to register, regulate, monitor, investigate and supervise political parties to ensure compliance with this Act; ensure publication of audited annual accounts of political parties; verify and make publicly available the list of all members of political parties; keep and maintain a register of members of registered political parties; maintain a register of political parties and the symbols of the political parties; ensure and verify that no person is a member of more than one political party and notify the Commission of the findings; and certify that an independent candidate in an election is not a member of any registered political party. 128. It was submitted that it was in line with this, that the 2nd Respondent developed the Integrated Political Parties Management System (herein ‘IPPMS’) for facilitate the efficient and effective management of political parties’ records. 129. According to the 2nd Respondent, it is a right of every adult citizen under Article 38(3)(c) to be a candidate for public office, or office within a political party of which the citizen is a member and, if elected, to hold office. It is however, the role of the political parties under Section 4A (b) of the Political Parties Act to nominate candidates for elections which may be direct or indirect. It was explained that where a political party conducts indirect party nomination by involving its members in the nomination process, Section 38C dictates that only the registered members of the political party be allowed to participate in the nomination process and for that purpose Section 38C (2) of the Political Parties Act mandates political parties who intend to conduct party nomination to acquire for their use, the certified party register. 130. In this regard the 2nd Respondent cited Sections 34, 38C(2) and (3) of the Political Parties Act and submitted that the certified party register contains the relevant information of every party member regardless of how he/she registered to be a member and that this is the totality of both the party membership list submitted to the Registrar by the political parties and the data of the persons who directly registered on the IPPMS platform. 131. It was submitted that various options are available to the respective political parties for the purpose of recruiting members which options culminate into a non-discriminative procedure given that manual procedures are available. The 2nd Respondent however maintained that lack of internet access by Petitioners cannot be attributed to it. Reference was made to Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others vs. Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR and it was submitted the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the IPPMS system discriminates against minorities and indigenous communities. 132. As regards the issue whether the State has endeavoured to initiate collaborative efforts that will see the special interest groups educated on the IPPMS, it was submitted that the IPPMS was developed with the involvement of all stakeholders including the political parties and the Political Parties Liaison Committee established under Section 38 of the Political Parties Act and that the representatives of the various political parties have undergone training on the use of IPPMS. According to the 2nd Respondent, the minorities and indigenous communities were well represented as required under the provisions of Section 7(2)(b) and (c) of the Political Parties Act. 133. Regarding the question whether this Court ought to interfere with the mandate of the 2nd Respondent as provided for by the Political Parties Act with respect to the use IPPMS, the 2nd Respondent referred to Section 33 of the Political Parties Act that establishes the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties and submitted that Section 33(5) of the Act protects the office of the 2nd Respondent and insulates it against the direction and control of anybody. Further, Section 34B (1) of the Political Parties Act having provided a framework for which the 2nd Respondent needs to develop an online platform to make political parties records and the 2nd Respondent subsequently developing IPPMS for this purpose, the Court’s interference by allowing the 2nd Respondent to use any other means of managing such data will be to usurp the powers of a constitutionally established body by the court contrary to clear provisions of the law. Reference was therefore made to Republic vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Ex-parte Gladwell Otieno & Anor [2017] eKLR. 134. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent urged the court to decline the invitation by the Petitioners to interfere with its mandate as provided for by the Act to use the IPPMS to ensure that political party nominations are administered in a lawful manner. 135. Based on the foregoing, the 2nd Respondent prayed for the Petition to be dismissed with costs. Interested Party’s Case http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 16/29