ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested rem thus the Applicants participation is of no significant effect. 4. THAT the Applicants case merely regurgitates the reliefs sought by the petitioners and does not demonstrate any exceptional conditions that would render their non-joinder prejudicial to their interests. 5. THAT the Applicants have not demonstrated a clearly identifiable interest proximate enough to be distinguished from anything that it merely peripheral to the matters in issue. 6. THAT the Applicants have not demonstrated that their submissions will be useful to the court and different from those of the petitioners so that their non-joinder will result in the incomplete settlement of all the issues raised in the proceedings. 7. THAT the Applicants’ participation would only serve to delay the expeditious hearing of this petition and escalate litigation costs to the prejudice of the respondents. 111. The 1st and 2nd Respondents also relied on a replying affidavit sworn by Jerome Ochieng, the Principal Secretary in the State Department of Information Communication and Technology (ICT) and Innovation. In the said affidavit he expounded on the importance of digital technologies as the cornerstone of global interactions that, Governments and individuals must adapt to. He stressed that it is the government’s policy that its services must be available online and that every Kenyan must have online access and the government’s services must be delivered quickly and fully at the time and place they are needed. 112. It was deposed that as a result of the foregoing the 3rd Respondent had developed different digital platforms for use in national government in delivering services to its citizens and that IPPMS as a digital platform is not different from other digital platforms which are already I use by the petitioners in obtaining other government services. It was further averred that whereas the government is keen to improve digital literacy across all ages so as to enhance delivery of government services, the use of digital platforms has not entirely replaced the existence and use of manual records hence the petitioners have no reason whatsoever to be fearful that their political rights will be infringed. 113. Based on legal advice, it was deposed that the petitioners had not demonstrated any constitutional violation and or any prejudice they would or are likely to suffer as a result of the implementation of the IPPMS as the said system cannot be said to disenfranchise or discriminate them simply because it does not suit their political interests to their taste. 114. He therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs. 2nd Respondent’s Case 115. In opposing the petition, the 2nd Respondent relied on a replying affidavit sworn by Daniel Kinuthia the Director of Compliance of the 2nd Respondent in which Section 33 of the Political Parties Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was cited. It was averred that since Section 34 (da) of the Act requires the 2nd Respondent to keep and maintain a register of members of registered political parties, in ensuring compliance with the Act the 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 Act. According to the deponent, Section 34 of the Act as read together with Section 28A of the Elections Act, mandates the 2nd Respondent to verify and certify political parties' membership lists and subsequently maintain the same as the political parties’ membership register under Section 34(da) of the Act. This register is the final record of the members of each political party for purposes of the circumstances prescribed by law including political parties’ nominations. Consequently, political parties are under an obligation to submit their party membership lists to the 2nd Respondent for verification and certification in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. 116. It was further deposed that Article 91(1) (e) of the Constitution obligates every political party to 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. Further, the political parties must ensure that the processes used in recruiting members, 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 and that political parties are allowed to recruit members through the following methods: http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 13/29