ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested 136. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (the Commission) in its opposition to the petition relied on the following grounds: 1) THAT the Petition as drawn and presented do not disclose any cause of action as against the Interested Party and is, therefore, bad in law, incompetent, frivolous, vexatious and is otherwise an abuse of Court process and should be dismissed in limine with costs to the Interested Party. 2) THAT the Petition as drawn and presented, go against the law as established by Statute, the Constitution as well as the jurisprudence of this Court, particularly Section 34 (da) of the Political Parties Act requires the 2nd Respondent to keep and maintain a register of members of registered political parties, Section 28A of the Elections Act, No. 24 of 2011 and Sections 23 and 24 of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act, 2022 on the use of technology and the method of conducting political party nominations. 3) THAT legally, the register of political parties’ membership so maintained by the 2nd Respondent is the final record of the members of each political party for all intents and purposes and therefore the reference to “other alternative means” to be used by political parties to conduct nominations as used in the Application and the Petition is a strange concept in law as the law only prescribes the “use of certified register of members for nominations.” 4) THAT the Petition as presented has not met the criteria for the grant of the conservatory Orders sought by the Petitioners, particularly as against the Interested Party. 5) THAT the Petition as presented seek to get Orders against parties who have not been given an opportunity to be heard before any such Orders are issued against them, particularly Political Parties who will be greatly affected by such Orders. 6) THAT the Orders sought in the Petition if granted will only operate to hamper the ability of the 2nd Respondent to properly carry out its mandate as per the law which includes, inter alia, to ensure that political parties comply with the law in carrying out their activities, ensure and verify that no person is a member of more than one political party; verify and make publicly available the list of all members of political parties; regulate political parties’ nominations. 7) THAT the suspension of the IPPMS will mean there are no political parties membership register accepted by law for all purposes, as the verification and certification of the political membership lists only occurs through the IPPMS as required by law. 137. On behalf of the Commission, it was submitted that the crux of the Petitioners’ case is that the digitization of the management of the political parties’ membership register impedes the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples living in Kenya; that minorities and indigenous communities represent a section of the populace that is limited in access to technology, and the integration of services to an online system will further disenfranchise these groups; that the digitization of the Political Parties’ Register will impede minorities and indigenous communities from participating in the soon coming party primaries; that the State launched the IPPMS without public participation and sensitization of the electorate on the reforms it intended to implement as regards the IPPMS; that on the whole, the Respondents violated Articles 6(3), 10, 20(2), 21, 27, 35, 38 and 56 of the Constitution of Kenya. 138. The 2nd Respondent in response has opposed the Petition on grounds that the Political Parties Act mandates it to establish a Political Parties Management Information System, an electronic system powered by technology, for the purpose of processing the political parties’ records and data; that the powers conferred upon it are necessary to perform its functions under Sections 34 (a), (d) and (f) of the Political Parties Act, to wit: to regulate, monitor, investigate and supervise political parties to ensure compliance with the Political Parties Act; to keep and maintain a register of members of registered political parties; to verify and make publicly available the list of all members of political parties; to ensure and verify that no person is a member of more than one political party; and notify the 1st Interested Party of its findings. 139. At the core of the 2nd Respondent’s case is the fact that the Political Parties Act requires political parties intending to conduct party nomination to acquire the party register certified by the 2nd Respondent. Therefore, barring the 2nd Respondent from using the digital register for the purposes of party nominations is contrary to the law and the effect will be that there will be no political parties’ membership register recognized by the law for the purpose of party nominations. This is also particularly in view of the fact that verification and certification of the political membership lists, which is a requirement of law, can only occur through IPPMS. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 17/29