ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested indigenous people's reasonable access to joining a political party, changing a political party or resigning from a political party. Further, the implementation of the IPPMS flagrantly breaches the values and principles in Article 10 to the extent that it does not promote democracy and participation of the minorities and indigenous peoples in politics. Since Article 20(2) states that every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent consistent with the nature of the right or fundamental freedom, reducing the services under the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties to an online system does not guarantee equal enjoyment of political rights by the minorities and indigenous communities in Kenya, owing to their limited access to technology. 21. In the Petitioners’ view, the State therefore, is overlooking the Constitution by presuming that the integration of such crucial services is at its best, an improvement of the government’s service delivery to its citizens, while in fact, the IPPMS closes a section of the populace to enjoy their inherent right of political engagement. Article 27 is at the heart of this Petition and among other stipulations vetoes the State to discriminate directly or indirectly against any person on any ground, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, health status, ethnic or social origin, colour, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, dress, language or birth. Therefore, a directive of the State to impose the IPPMS on Kenyans directly discriminates against the minorities and indigenous communities who neither have access to technological advancements nor have they been considered in the process of implementation in the very least. 57. Since Article 35 provides that every citizen has the right of access to information held by the State, it was pleaded that the launch of the IPPMS by the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties falls short of this requirement in the sense that only the privileged within society have unlimited access to the internet and will thereby be privy to such information. The minorities and indigenous communities again bear the brunt of being subjected to a discriminative legislation that is keen to frustrate their civic right. 58. To the Petitioners, Article 38, another bedrock to this Petition, states that every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right to form, or participate in forming, a political party, to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party or to campaign for a political party or cause. The continued operation of the IPPMS, it was pleaded is an infringement of this right and fundamental freedom as minorities and indigenous communities are not beneficiaries of technological advancements within their geographic locations. 59. It was recalled that Article 56 imposes on the State a specific duty towards the minorities and marginalised groups (communities), to put in place affirmative action programmes designed to ensure that they participate and are represented in governance and other spheres of life. In light of the IPPMS, the State has not endeavoured to initiate collaborative efforts that will see the special interest group educated on this recent development. This information gap presents an imminent risk that minorities and marginalised communities will not be participants in the upcoming general elections. 60. Consequently, the Petitioners sought the following reliefs: a) A declaration that the State is obligated to observe, respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights. b) An Order that the Respondents be and is hereby compelled to suspend the Integrated Political Parties System, pending the formulation of adequate legislation and policy to specifically protect the political participation rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. c) An Order directing the Respondents to put in place measures guaranteeing the full enjoyment of the fundamental rights and freedoms encapsulated under Articles 6(3),27, 35, 38 and 56 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 with specific attention to minorities and indigenous peoples. d) Any other Orders or directions that this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate to grant in the circumstances. e) Costs be in the cause. 61. In support of the petition, the petitioners relied on the affidavits sworn by Nyang’ori Ohenjo, William Sipai, the 2nd Petitioner and Noah Kitarpei Matunge. According to them, on 10th November, 2021 they learnt from social media that the 1st and 2nd http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 5/29