Three political parties accused of unlawfully recruiting members without consent have escaped scrutiny after the High Court dismissed a petition that had exposed weaknesses in party data systems, digital mobilisation practices and political oversight.
The case, filed against President William Ruto's UDA, former President Uhuru Kenyatta's Jubilee and the Farmers Party, collapsed after the court found that the electronic evidence relied on by the petitioners failed to meet the legal threshold required under the Evidence Act.
The court ruled that the petitioners had not filed the mandatory certificate authenticating the integrity of the electronic records, rendering the evidence inadmissible despite the weighty constitutional questions raised in the case.
“The petition essentially relies on electronic evidence without which it stands no chance and must therefore inevitably collapse for want of proof,” the judge said.
The ruling could shape how political parties collect voters' data, conduct digital enrollment and defend future litigation over electronic evidence. It also raises the evidentiary burden for legal disputes involving digital rights and electronic records.
The petition dated August 8, 2022, had accused the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties, Jubilee Party, United Democratic Alliance (UDA) and Farmers Party of violating Kenyans’ constitutional rights by registering them into political parties without consent.
The petitioners, Ruth Ogolla, Crispin Bosire and Kelvin Macharia, told the court they discovered in June 2021 that they had been enlisted into political parties after checking their status through the Registrar’s online verification system. The other petitioner was the rights group Katiba Institute.
The State’s e-Citizen payment platform.
The verification platform had been introduced through the e-Citizen portal, SMS code and the Integrated Political Parties Management System to allow Kenyans to confirm party membership status ahead of the 2022 general election.
The case emerged during a period when hundreds of Kenyans complained publicly that they had found themselves listed as members of political outfits they had never joined.
According to the petitioners, the alleged forced registration breached their constitutional rights to privacy, political choice, freedom of association, access to information and fair administrative action.
They also accused the Registrar of Political Parties of failing to provide effective remedies after complaints emerged.
The petitioners wanted the court to compel the Registrar to audit party membership registers, expunge irregularly registered members and force political parties to comply with data protection laws.
They further sought orders compelling the Registrar to operationalise a lawful verification system and deregister political parties found to have breached constitutional rights until they complied with the law.
But the parties denied wrongdoing. The Farmers Party argued that the petitioners had failed to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms under the Political Parties Act and the Data Protection Act before moving to court.
The party also denied illegally registering members and insisted the petitioners had not produced evidence proving unlawful recruitment.
The Registrar of Political Parties defended the Integrated Political Parties Management System, saying it allowed Kenyans to check membership status and resign from parties through mobile phones, e-citizen and online portals.
The Registrar further told the court that citizens who found themselves enlisted without consent could indicate so while resigning from parties.
In the verdict, the judge rejected arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute, ruling that constitutional questions touching on privacy, political rights and freedom of association properly belonged before the High Court.
“The Petition as pleaded clearly delineates the specific rights and fundamental freedoms that were allegedly violated,” the court said.
It added that the Data Protection Act was limited in scope because it mainly addressed privacy rights under Article 31 of the Constitution.
“This makes the Act unsuitable in situations involving multiple intertwined constitutional violations,” it ruled.
However, the case ultimately collapsed after the court found the petitioners had failed to properly authenticate electronic evidence, including emails and digital records relied on in the case.
It ruled that electronic evidence must comply with Section 106B of the Evidence Act, which requires a formal certificate confirming the integrity and authenticity of digital records.
“As such, the electronic evidence relied upon in this Petition does not meet the legal threshold of admissibility hence is inadmissible,” the judge ruled.
“The Petition essentially relies on electronic evidence without which it stands no chance and must therefore inevitably collapse for want of proof.”
The judgment comes as political parties intensify technology-driven recruitment and voter engagement strategies ahead of the next election cycle, with digital databases and mobile-based political mobilisation becoming critical campaign tools.
