ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested bear in mind that fact that the system must promote the rights under Article 38 as opposed to curtailing the same. 178. According to the 2nd Respondent, it is upon the Political parties to ensure that the processes used in recruiting members, meets the Constitutional threshold under Articles 91(1)(e), and 27 of the Constitution and that they are precluded from discriminating against any persons including marginalized groups and minority communities. However, the role of the 2nd Respondent within the framework of the political party membership registration is to verify and certify the membership list provided by the various political parties under Section 34 of the Political Parties Act. 179. In this petition, however, it is not the actions of the political parties that is under scrutiny. Rather, it is the actions taken by the 2nd Respondent towards the furtherance of its legal mandate that is under interrogation. It is contended that the 2nd Respondent, in developing a system through which the citizens are expected to check their membership status, join parties of choice and resign, the 2nd Respondent contravened the rights of the Petitioners by unjustifiably restricting them. 180. It is noteworthy, according to the 2nd Respondent, that under the Political Parties Act, 2nd Respondent is under obligation to verify whether a person wishing to join a political party meets the requirement specified in Sections 3(2A) and 34(f) of the Political Parties Act which include the fact that a person does not belong to another political party. 181. It is true that under Article 91(1)(e) of the Constitution every political party must respect the rights of all persons to participate in the political process, including minorities and marginalized groups while Section 4A (a) of the Political Parties Act imposes upon political parties the obligation to recruit and enlist members and that in so doing the processes meet the Constitutional threshold under Articles 91(1)(e), and 27 of the Constitution; and do not discriminate any persons including the marginalized groups and minority communities. However, the IPPMS is a system developed, not by the political parties, but by the 2nd Respondent. Whereas the 2nd Respondent contends 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, that does not suffice in so far as the citizens for whom the system is meant are concerned. I agree with the petitioners that the political parties may not necessarily act in the best interest of the members taking into account the fact that in this country the political parties are practically the properties of the leadership of the parties and they may well be acting in their self-interest or interest that are not necessary those of their members. 182. The Respondents however, maintained that the political parties are allowed to recruit members through manual registration by completing recruitment forms as long as such members consent and also through Integrated Political Parties Management System (IPPMS) availed on the e-citizen platform, and web page link ippms.orpp.or.ke available for those who do not wish to use or have access to e-citizen account. Accordingly, every adult citizen who wishes to become a member of a political party is at liberty to use any of the mechanisms outlined above and that whichever way a party elects to enlist its members, such list must be submitted to the 2nd Respondent for verification and certification (where required) to ensure compliance with the Act. 183. Although the Respondents contended that there are in place other digital platforms that serve the citizens, I share the Petitioners’ view that the IPPMS is distinct from other digital platforms as it impacts on the exercise of sovereignty protected under Article 1(2) of the Constitution on the right to elect representatives and that unlike the 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. 184. The Petitioners however contend that whereas Article 35 of the Constitution provides that every citizen has the right of access to information held by the State, the launch of the IPPMS by the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties falls short of this requirement in the sense that only the privileged within society have unlimited access to the internet and will thereby be privy to such information. The 2nd Respondent did not place before the Court any evidence that it took any steps towards the sensitization of the public about the options available to the public as regards the checking of membership status, joining a party of choice and resigning from a party. It seems that the 2nd Respondent was satisfied with the fact that the political parties were aware of the said options. 185. In my view, by failing to sensitize the public about the available options the 2nd Respondent failed to comply with Article 35 of the Constitution. I agree that the 1st and 2nd Respondents in failing to consult and engage the petitioners in public participation and civic education before launching the said IPPMS deprived them and their communities of opportunities for self-expression in their political affairs. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 24/29