Usawa Kwa Wote party has filed a notice of appeal against the judgment on Wednesday upholding the Political Parties Amendments Act and its ban on party hopping.
In a notice of appeal, the party says it is dissatisfied with part of the judgment by the three-judge bench and intends to appeal.
In the case, Usawa kwa Wote had sued Parliament and the AG for unlawfully passing the amendments that allowed coalitions.
It was joined in the suit against Parliament and the Attorney General by the Katiba Institute, Africog, the Kenya Section of the International Commission of Jurists and the Kenya Human Rights Commission.
Usawa Kwa Wote specifically wanted the court to allow aspirants to move from one party to another if they lose in the nominations.
However the court dismissed their arguments and further upheld the Political Parties Amendment Act 2022 that was passed into law in February.
Justices Hedwig Ong’udi, Esther Maina and Daniel Ogembo ruled there is no unconstitutionality in the Political Parties Amendments Act.
It was also a blow for the candidates who want to move to other parties as court ruled they cannot party hop.
“We find it impractical for the political party candidates to enjoy the same timelines as independent candidates. [This is] because unlike independent candidates, the party nominations elicit disputes and a timetable that enables them to work on the activities and programmes,” the court ruled.
The court also found the public participation before enactment of the impugned amendment was consultative meaningful and reasonable. It ruled the amendments cannot be nullified on that ground.
The court also dismissed the petitioners' argument the impugned amendment renders the principal Political Parties Act ambiguous, uncertain or vague.
The petitioners had said the introduction of a coalition political party in the Political Parties Act has created vagueness, confusion and ambiguity in the statute. This has rendered it incoherent and unconstitutional, they said.
The state said the Act has no vagueness in the definition, there is no justification for the petitioner’s assumption that political parties cannot come together on account of a shared ideology.
They ruled that the constitution is based on a clear distinction between a political party and a coalition political party, in both their formation and operation.
“The amendment clearly shows what the mind of Parliament was on the formation of a political party, a coalition and a coalition political party. There is no doubt on what Parliament intended,” the judges held.
(Edited by V. Graham)
“WATCH: The latest videos from the Star”
