GOVERNMENT DEFENDS AMENDMENT OF POLITICAL PARTIES ACT.

BY SAM ALFAN.

Solicitor General Ken Ogeto has defended the amended Political Parties Act and Elections Act saying the same was passed by the parliament within the law.

While urging the court to dismiss the petition challenging the amendment, Ogeto said the provisions of the law was followed before the Bill was presented to Parliament.

“Petitioners have not demonstrated how the timelines were inadequate in the circumstances of the subject amendment Act, or how the use of emails was curtailing”, Ogeto told the court.

He told the three judge bench Justice Esther Maina, Hedwig Ong’udi and Daniel Ogembo that there was no violation of the law as alleged by the petitioners. He said if there exist some wrong, then it can be rectified.

Solicitor General told the three judge bench that the specified provisions of the amended Political Parties Act and the Elections Act are not in any way unconstitutional, as alleged by the Petitioners.

Ogeto submitted that the amendment does not compel political parties to form coalition as alleged by the petitioners.

“The amended Political Parties Act does not compel parties to join coalition political parties. Membership would be voluntary, and based on the democratic consent of the members of the relevant party. Parties are therefore free to exist outside the coalition party framework”, Ogeto submited.

The court heard that contrary to the petitioners’ hypothesis, coalition political parties will actually assure multi-party democracy because the constituent parties will be able to benefit from cooperation without losing their independent existence, as would have been the case if they merged.

According to SG Ogeto, the alleged threat to multi-party democracy as perceived by the petitioners cannot be limited to coalition political parties and It would exist, in an even stronger sense, in the case of mergers. Yet, an argument that mergers between political parties cannot be permissible will be utterly absurd.

He argued that there was extensive public participation before the Bill was sent to the parliament.

“we respectfully submit that the petitioners have completely disregarded the fact that there was extensive public participation on the Bill before it was submitted to Parliament”, he told the bench.

Ogeto submited that it is now trite that there is no template for public participation and the nature and duration of public participation will depend on the circumstances of each case,

The petitioners includes Salesio Thuranira
Katiba Institute, Africog and Kenya Human Rights Commission.

The petitioners asked the court to declare the amendment as unconstitutional and violates the law.

They argued that the amendment were passed in bad faith and without public participation.

The activists further argued that the Act of amendments contradicts the constitutional definition of a political party.

“The passing of the Bill flouted several National Assembly Standing orders which are procedural imperatives that should have been observed and that the Bill as passed contradicts the constitutional definition of a political party at Article 260,” he argued.

The case wants courts orders barring the IEBC and the Registrar of Political Parties from implementing or acting on the Political Parties (Amendment) Act, 2021.

They argued that the Bill was passed in the National Assembly without being subjected to public participation.