ghts Development (CEMIRIDE) & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others; Independent Electoral and BoundariesCommission (Interested 149. While appreciating that this is the first time these provisions of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act are being put to test before a court of law and that there isn’t jurisprudence or precedence that is specific to the said sections of the law, it was submitted that the principles on the use of technology in the general elections as espoused in numerous decisions of this Court and the Courts above it, ring true and should be extrapolated to the circumstances before this Court. This is based on the fact that nominations are a precursor to the general elections and the integrity of the party primaries have a direct impact on the integrity of the general elections. On this principle reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Raila Amolo Odinga & Another vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2017] eKLR (Presidential Petition 1 of 2017) where the Court found that elections are processes and not events; as such lack of compliance with the law at any stage of the electoral process will affect the validity of the election. The Commission also relied on Katiba Institute & 3 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others (2018) eKLR wherein the Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Elections Law (Amendment) Act 34 of 2017 which sought to amend Section 39 of the Elections Act of 2011 so as to diminish the role of technology in the conduct of elections by elevating manual result transmission over electronic transmission and the Court noted that physical transmission of results opened up mischief for possible adulteration and manipulation. In addition, the Commission cited Ahmed Abdullahi Mohammed & Ahmed Muhumid Abdi v Mohamed Abdi Mahamed, Patrick Gichohi & IEBC Nairobi Election Petition 14 of 2017 in which the Court emphasized the intention to make the use of technology central in elections management in Kenya. 150. According to the Commission, the Supreme Court in Raila Amolo Odinga (Supra), while making reference to the Kriegler report pronounced itself on the use of technology in the electoral process. 151. While appreciating that some of the authorities relied upon speak to use of technology in transmission of election results and not necessarily use of technology in registration of persons as members of Political Parties, it was submitted that the underpinning principle in the Courts’ findings is that the use of technology in the electoral process is key to upholding the integrity of the elections, including the political party nomination exercises. 152. As to the rights of minorities and indigenous communities to participate in party primaries, it was submitted that they are still able to participate in the same as political parties are allowed to recruit members through manual registration. Further, all registered political parties have access to the IPPMS for purposes of uploading the party membership lists. It is at this point that the 2nd Respondent then verifies the membership lists on the IPPMS. It was therefore submitted by the Commission that the operation of the IPPMS by the 2nd Respondent does not impede minorities and indigenous communities from participating in party primaries. 153. According to the Commission, 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. Further, 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 and that any attempt to use any other register or means will be unlawful and void. The Court was therefore urged to allow the 2nd Respondent to carry out its functions as spelt out in the law without any interference. 154. Regarding the issue whether, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties are proper parties to this suit and whether this Court should give credence to the issues raised by them, it was submitted based the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2012, Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs. Mumo Matemu & 5 others, Petition No. 12 of 2013 [2014] eKLR and Judicial Service Commission v. Speaker of the National Assembly and Attorney General, High Court Constitutional and Human Rights Division Petition No. 518 of 2013, 2013 [eKLR], Meme v. Republic [2004] 1 EA 124; [2004] 1 KLR 637, Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v. Republic & 5 others, Sup. Ct. Pet. 15 & 16 of 2015 (consolidated); [2016] eKLR, that the presence of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties herein is not necessary and will serve no purpose in assisting this court adjudicate upon and settling the issues raised by the Petitioner and the Respondents in the matter. According to the Commission, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties are raising fundamentally new issues being, use of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) register during the party register as opposed to the Party List which has not been raised by the Petitioners and that this is contrary to the legal principle that an interested party should not frame his own issues or introduce new issues for determination by the Court. It was nevertheless, submitted 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 preference by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Interested Parties to the use of the IEBC voters register to conduct nominations has no legal foundation and is, thus, a strange concept in law as the law only prescribes the “use of certified register of members for nominations.” 155. It was submitted that the proposed use of the IEBC Voters Register for party nomination instead of the certified register of members will have the effect of allowing non-party members to take part in the nominations of the Political Party thereby directly http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 19/29