ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested influencing the affairs of members. 156. It was therefore submitted that the Petitioners had not demonstrated to the required standard how their rights and fundamental freedoms were violated, infringed or are threatened to enable the Court give redress within the ambit of Article 23(1) of the Constitution. Further, it had been established that suspension of the IPPMS will impede the 2nd Respondent from carrying out its functions of verification and certification of the political parties’ membership register, thus tainting the integrity of the nomination process and that, there is no other register or alternative means recognized in law through which parties may conduct nominations other than through the certified register maintained by the 2nd Respondent. 157. The Commission therefore prayed that this Court dismisses the instant Petition with costs. Determination 158. The facts of this petition is largely not in dispute. What provoked this petition was the launch of the Integrated Political Parties Management System (hereafter referred to as the “IPPMS” or “the System”) on the State’s e-Citizen platform by the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties in conjunction with the Ministry of Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) on 10th November, 2021. That this system was launched is also not in dispute. According to the 2nd Respondent, the system is a web application developed to facilitate efficient and effective management of political party records in part fulfilment of the requirements of Article 82(1) of the Constitution that mandates Parliament to enact legislation to provide for: (a) … (b) the nomination of candidates; (c) … (d) the conduct of elections and referenda and the regulation and efficient supervision of elections and referenda, including the nomination of candidates for elections; and 159. According to the Commission pursuant to the requirement in Article 82(2) of the Constitution that legislation required by clause (1)(d) must ensure that voting at every election (including the conduct of party primaries) is simple and transparent, Parliament has, accordingly, enacted several legislations including the Political Parties Act to provide for the regulation of political parties which Act is required by the Constitution to ensure that the nomination process of candidates by political parties is transparent. It was submitted that Section 34 of the Political Parties Act mandates the 2nd Respondent to inter alia: a. Register, regulate, monitor, investigate and supervise political parties to ensure compliance with the Act; b. Verify and make publicly available the list of all members of political parties; c. Keep and maintain a register of members of political parties; d. Maintain a register of political parties and the symbols of the political parties; e. Ensure and verify that no person is a member of more than one political party and notify the Commission (the 1st Interested Party) of its findings. 160. To effect this mandate, it was contended that Section 34B(1) of the Political Parties Act empowers the 2nd Respondent to use technology and more specifically to establish a political parties’ management information system through which it shall process political parties’ data and records. Therefore, it was contended that this being the clear position in law, the launch and operationalization of the IPPMS is sufficiently grounded in and compliant with the Political Parties Act which prescribes in Section 38C that the register that parties must use in conducting party nominations must one that has been verified and certified by the 2nd Respondent. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 20/29