ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested 140. According to the Commission, it is now trite law that a Petition for allegations of violation of fundamental freedoms and rights such as this, must disclose, with precision, the rights and freedoms violated. This submission was based on Anarita Karimi Njeru vs. Republic [1979] eKLR, Ben Kipeno & 6 Others –vs- Attorney General & Another [2007] eKLR and Husus Mugiri vs. Music Copy Right Society of Kenya & Another [2018] eKLR. 141. In this case it was submitted that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate to with precision, the nature of their rights and or freedoms which have been violated and/or threatened and/or likely to be violated by the Respondents as is required in a Constitutional Petition. 142. The Petitioners have pleaded that their rights and fundamental freedoms under Articles 6(3), 10, 20(2), 21, 27, 35, 38 and 56 of the Constitution of Kenya have been violated and/or are likely to be infringed by the Respondents. It was submitted that while the Petitioners may, in their Petition, have invoked several provisions of the Constitution, they have not demonstrated to the required standard how their rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated, infringed or are threatened to enable the Court give redress within the ambit of Article 23(1) of the Constitution. 143. As regards the issue whether the Court should grant the orders sought by the Petitioner and particularly whether the Court should suspend the operationalization of the Integrated Political Parties System, it was submitted that this Court should be guided by the express provisions of the Political Parties Act and the Elections Act on this issue and reference was made to Article 82(1) of the Constitution. 144. 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. Reference was therefore made to Section 34 of the Political Parties Act and it was submitted that to effect this mandate, 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. This being the clear position in law, it was the Commission’s submission that 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. 145. The Commission contended that contrary to the Petitioner’s prayers, the law does not envisage “other alternative means” for purposes of conducting nominations by political parties. This, to the Commission, is a concept that is not known in law and therefore grant of the orders prayed for by the Petitioner will amount to a nullity in law. In any case, the use of alternative means is antithetical to the constitutional requirement of transparency in the electoral process which includes the nomination of candidates. 146. It was noted that it is through the IPPMS that the 2nd Respondent verifies the register of members of political parties and without the system, the 2nd Respondent will not be able to verify nor certify the membership registers. The logical effect of this is that parties will not be able to conduct lawful nominations as there will be no verified nor certified party membership registers. The ripple effect of the foregoing, according to the Commission, is that the 1st Interested Party may conduct elections on the basis of unlawful nominations and this in itself is a recipe for anarchy. 147. To the Commission, the role that technology plays in ensuring that elections are fair and transparent as it offers reduced risk of electoral malpractice and increased efficiency in the management of nominations. Further, the Laws empowering the 2nd Respondent to establish a political parties’ management information system through which it shall process political parties’ data and records is a very recent development in law and this is the first time that the said provisions are being subjected to challenge before a court of law. This Court was urged to set forward-looking precedence that align with the Country’s legislation and jurisprudence which embrace the use of technology in the electoral process as it offers transparency, verifiability, accuracy, security and accountability. 148. Since the intention of the people of Kenya as expressed in the Constitution and national legislation in Section 34B(1) of the Political Parties Act is that the 2nd Respondent should use a management information system in the processing of political parties’ data, it was argued that the orders sought by the Petitioners only seek to go against the will of the people of Kenya and the Court was urged to uphold the intention of Kenyan citizens as expressed in legislation and implemented by the 2nd Respondent. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 18/29