The High Court has rejected a lawsuit seeking to ease access to the Political Parties Fund, ruling that only genuinely established political outfits with demonstrable national presence and electoral representation are entitled to public funding.
In a landmark decision delivered by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, the court dismissed a petition filed by Jane Florence Njiru, the vice-chairperson of Ford Asili Party, who argued that the requirements under the Political Parties Act, 2011 were discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Justice Mugambi defended the stringent legal provisions, stating that they are necessary to protect public resources and prevent the misuse of funds by so-called “briefcase parties” — political formations with no real structure, grassroots presence, or electoral success.
“It must not be lost in mind that the issue at hand is public funds,” the judge stated.
“These conditions are deliberately meant to guard against the mushrooming of political parties formed with the sole aim of drawing off public money.”
The judge said the current legal requirements ensure accountability and prevent the proliferation of political parties solely formed to exploit public funds.
“The question before the court touches on public funds. It is imperative to protect these resources from misuse by ‘briefcase parties’ whose main objective is to siphon money under the guise of political participation,” Justice Mugambi stated.
Under the Political Parties Act, 2011, only parties with at least one elected representative and physical offices in a minimum of 24 counties are eligible for state funding.
Justice Mugambi held that these standards were deliberate and reasonable safeguards to promote responsible and representative political institutions.
“The law does not classify parties as big or small, rich or poor. It merely sets out minimum standards that apply to all equally,” he said, rejecting claims that the Act was discriminatory.
The petitioner, Ms. Njiru, had argued that the funding model and compliance requirements were unconstitutional and unfairly favoured larger, wealthier political outfits.
She specifically cited the Sh600,000 registration fee, the demand for county offices, and the requirement for elected representatives as hurdles that disadvantaged smaller or emerging parties.
She further contended that basing funding on the number of elected leaders rather than the total number of votes garnered undermined democratic participation and gave unfair dominance to a few well-established parties.
However, the court found that Ms. Njiru failed to provide sufficient grounds to prove discrimination or unconstitutionality.
The judge noted that while the requirements may pose financial and logistical challenges, difficulty alone is not enough to invalidate a law.
“The petitioner’s argument that the law favours certain political entities is unsubstantiated. There’s no evidence presented to show how these provisions violate constitutional rights or principles of equality,” Justice Mugambi said.
The court also noted that the requirements, including a diverse governing structure, regional representation, and inclusion of special interest groups, are in line with the constitutional vision of promoting national unity and inclusion in party politics.
According to Section 7(2) of the Political Parties Act, a political party must meet several conditions to qualify for public funding, including holding at least one elective office, maintaining a national presence, and ensuring gender and ethnic diversity within its leadership.
Justice Mugambi concluded that the standards are not only rational but essential for maintaining a viable and meaningful multiparty democracy.
“Just because a legislative requirement is demanding or expensive does not make it unconstitutional. The Political Parties Fund should not be turned into a cash cow,” the judge cautioned.
