ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested Respondents had launched on the State’s e-Citizen platform the Integrated Political Parties Management System (hereafter referred to as the “IPPMS”) which, according to them was to make the system the primary and only platform to manage the political parties’ membership register and to enable an individual to check membership status, join a political party and change party membership. It was indicated the announcement by the State intended to enable Kenyans easily access the said services and in so doing transform the government’s service delivery to its citizens. 62. In the deponents’ view, contrary to this belief, this initiative dangerously impedes the political rights of MIPs living in Kenya and presents a potential risk to this group’s political representation and participation in democracy. In light of that the Petitioners sought to have the issues which now fall for determination in this petition, addressed by the Registrar of Political Parties on 9th February, 2022 but no response was forthcoming. 63. According to the deponents, the outcome of this Petition bears a solemn impact directly and indirectly on the social, economic and political welfare of minorities and indigenous communities living in Kenya. In their views, the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, as the supreme law of Kenya, was intentionally promulgated to surmount historical and legislative discrimination faced by MIPs and the IPPMS consequently defeats the spirit of the Constitution. They lamented that the State is perpetuating discrimination against MIPs by introducing a retrogressive mechanism of political party membership and this Court has the power to cease such legislative discrimination. To them, the Respondents never undertook to put in place legislative measures effecting the implementation of the IPPMS hence rendering the IPPMS unconstitutional. 64. It was the deponents’ view that the Kenyan minorities and indigenous communities represent a section of the populace that is limited in access to technology, and the integration of the services to an online system will further disenfranchise these groups. This, it was deposed, is due to the fact that a review of the 2019 census report reveals statistical data on the stark reality of marginalisation in the country in reference to the access of internet by the minorities and indigenous communities. From this data, it was averred that the inability of MIPs to access the internet will unjustifiably lock them out from the electoral process of registering, freely joining a political party of choice and changing a political party. 65. The deponents some of whom represented Keekenyokia clan of the Maasai pastoralist community, a tribe of about 30,000 clan members and the Yaaku minority group, averred that the clan members do not have the technologies, gadgets and access to the internet to access the IPPMS yet they wish to take part in political primaries before the end date, confirm the status of their political party affiliation on the said system and change party membership before the upcoming party nomination. They were however apprehensive that due to lack of adequate time to comply, and lack of gadgets, technologies and internet connectivity, they would be locked out of such exercise for adequate time to comply, and lack gadgets, technologies and internet connectivity. Such an occurrence, according to them, impedes their ability to form a political party of their choice, nominate candidates of their choice from their community, or support candidates that are aligned to their personal or communal interests. 66. They asserted that this would be yet another instance of leaving the minority and indigenous people behind in governance through rapid adoption of inaccessible technologies and would disenfranchise them and curtail their participation in political activities. Since to them, the digital register of political parties has no measure to achieve equality, it violates their rights as protected under Article 56 of the Constitution. They complained that the IPPMS therefore curtails their rights to self-determination, as they have been restricted in participation and ultimately controlling their political affairs through disenfranchisement by way of technological use. 67. According to them, the 1st and 2nd Respondents in failing to consult and engage their communities 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 and that this systemic discrimination threatens their collective sense of belonging and deprives them of opportunities for self-expression in matters affecting their governance. 68. In a rejoinder to the replies filed in opposition to the petition, the Petitioners vide an affidavit sworn by Nyangóri Ohenjo, averred that the Respondents and the Interested Party appear to implement the registration of party members on the IPPMS in partnership with Political Parties, who may well be acting in their self-interest or interest of some constituency they consider their stronghold, and such discriminative process cannot be the framework for the realisation or limitation of the right of citizens to exercise their sovereignty. The deponent averred that the 2nd Respondent does not have a final register of any political party since illustratively, the same Act also recognizes that Political parties have the power to deem some of their members to have resigned on numerous grounds under Section 14 of the Act without reporting obligations to the 2nd Respondent. To him, clearly the provisions of the Act, party membership registers are in flux, ultimately dependent on the conduct of party members. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 6/29