ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested 186. This modus operandi epitomises our entrenched routine ritual by the bodies entrusted with election management and monitoring to go dormant, whether as a result of their own inaction or as a result of the actions or omissions of other state actors to only become active when the next elections are fast approaching. As a result, actions that ought to be taken well in good time are not taken until the eleventh hour thereby catching the people unawares. Unnecessary time is thereby wasted in break-neck litigation of disputes that ought to have been solved well in advance. Such steps as legislative and regulatory reforms, training and developments and upgrading of systems ought to be undertaken fairly early in the electoral cycle in order to avoid running around like headless chicken at the eleventh hour. One might well be forgiven to believe that we relish the confusion which has become part of our electoral DNA and that the blame game that characterise the aftermath of every election is a permanent feature of our electoral cycle. 187. While our politicians start politicking immediately after one election, our institutions charged with the process are forgotten until the politicians realise that in order for their dreams or nightmares to be realised they need those institutions. Why, for example, can’t we have the necessary laws and regulations in place in good time" Why can’t we ensure that the electoral management body is sufficiently funded in good time" 188. We have developed a culture of procrastination in election preparations and only wait to be jumpstarted when the elections are round the corner notwithstanding the fact that the elections date is predictable and stone-carved in our Constitution. It is now well known when elections are to take place. The month and the day of the elections is well set out in the Constitution and is no longer a matter of conjecture or secret weapon of the Head of State. In my view, one of the reasons behind expressly setting out the month and the day of the elections in such an important instrument as the Constitution itself was to create certainty in the electoral calendar and to enable those charged with electoral preparations to prepare themselves in advance and for the State to make necessary provisions for the realisation of the principles under Article 81 of the Constitution. That Article provides as follows: The electoral system shall comply with the following principles–– (a) freedom of citizens to exercise their political rights under Article 38; (b) not more than two-thirds of the members of elective public bodies shall be of the same gender; (c) fair representation of persons with disabilities; (d)universal suffrage based on the aspiration for fair representation and equality of vote; and (e) free and fair elections, which are— (i) by secret ballot; (ii) free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or corruption; (iii) conducted by an independent body; (iv) transparent; and (v) administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner. 189. It has become customary for the political class to bay for electoral reforms after every election. However, that call dies down after some time and it is forgotten that there is a need for such reforms until a year or two to elections when the country suddenly goes into overdrive about some semblance of reforms. It is at that time that it dawns on the politicians that the Electoral Management Body is not properly constituted; that the bodies tasked with either the management of elections or resolution of electoral disputes have no substantive Chief Executive Officers; that the transmission of the electoral results requires panel beating; and that we do not have in place necessary legislative and regulatory framework that are geared towards the achievement of the constitutional threshold prescribed in Article 81 of the Constitution. As a result, we embark on what the petitioners term as ill-timed amendments to the law and in the process fail to adhere to the requirements of Article 10 of the Constitution as the 2nd Respondent failed to do in this case. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 25/29