The Registrar of Political Parties has hit out an application by one Simon Maina Mwangi seeking to reserve ten names for a Gen Z political party due to inclusivity matters. Among the rejected names are “Gen-Z Movement”, “Gen-Z Democratic Party”, “Gen-Z National Movement”, “Gen-Z Alliance Movement”, “Gen-Z Democratic Movement”, “Gen-Z People’s Alliance”, “Gen-Z United Movement”, “Gen-Z People’s Movement”, “Gen-Z Political Party”, and “Gen-Z Alliance Party”. Ms Ann Nderitu, the Registrar, indicated that the names failed to meet the Constitution’s threshold on the registration of political parties.
The ORPP has withdrawn them on the basis of failing to adhere to Article 91(1)(a) (e) of the Constitution. The paper insists that political parties should have a national character and must respect every person’s rights to participate in the political process, that there is inclusiveness, especially towards minorities and marginalized groups. The constitutional framework captures the notion that political parties should foster unity at the national level, emphasize democratic principles, and exercise practices for good governance—respect for human rights and gender equality.
In reaction, city lawyer James Ogega has petitioned the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal to challenge the rejection. In his petition, Ogega wants the tribunal to quash the decision by the Registrar and further compel the registration of the name “The Gen Z Party” as a political party. To back his case, Ogega says that the registrar based the rejection on a very narrow definition of “Gen Z,” which could mean anything else, like “Generation Zote,” “Gender Z,” among other meanings.
Ogega feels that the Registrar has not provided reasons why the name did not meet the inclusivity criteria and, therefore, the rejection was unfair and premature. Indeed, he argues that the Registrar’s decision contravenes a myriad of provisions in the Constitution: Articles 10, 20(2), 31(3), 27(4), 28, 36, 38, and 232, which emphasize inclusivity, democratic participation, and absence of discrimination in political processes.
In any case, Ogega submits that the decision denying the name “Gen Z” failed to consider any procedural requirements of Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Political Parties Act for the full registration of a political party. He asserts that the conclusion reached by the Registrar was not in full compliance with these procedures, hence infringing the political rights of the appellant.
The petition by Ogega seeks to clarify and open up what he considers a misapplication of the inclusivity requirement by the Registrar, arguing that the decision derogates from constitutional guarantees as well as the appellant’s rights.
