[2023] KEPPDT 1260 (KLR)

Munuku v Amemba & 2 others (Complaint E002 (KKG) of 2023) [2023] KEPPDT 1260 (KLR) (14 November 2023) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2023] KEPPDT 1260 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal

Complaint E002 (KKG) of 2023

D. Nungo, Chair, S Musau, MM Yusuf Jin & AA Abdikadir, Members

November 14, 2023

Between

Fredrick Ojiambo Munuku

Plaintiff

and

Paul Odhiambo Amemba

1st Respondent

National Elections Board, The Office of the Registrar of Political Parties

2nd Respondent

National Reconstruction Alliance Party

3rd Respondent

Ruling

1. The Complainant herein has challenged the legality of a notice that was issued by the 1st Respondent calling for a meeting of the 3rd Respondent’s National Delegates Conference (NDC) on 24th September 2023. Together with the Complaint, the Complainant filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 22nd September 2023 under certificate of urgency.

2. The subject application was placed before the tribunal on 25th September 2023 for directions under certificate of urgency and the following directions/orders were issued:-i.the Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2023 be and is hereby certified urgent for consideration ex-parte in this first instance only.ii.That the NRA Party to be joined in these proceedings as the 3rd Respondent and the pleadings to be amended accordingly.iii.That the Amended Statement of Complaint and Notice of Motion application be served upon the Respondents and the NRA Party within three (3) days of the date hereof.iv.That the Respondents to file and serve their response(s) to the Application within seven (7) days of the date of service.v.That corresponding leave is granted to the Complainant/Applicant to file and serve further reply if need be within three (3) days of service.vi.That the Notice of Motion Application be listed for mention on 11th October 2023 at 2. 30pm to check on compliance and for further directions as to hearing. vii. THAT pending the inter-partes hearing and determination of the Application, this Honourable Tribunal hereby issues conservatory orders staying the decision or resolutions of the NDC meeting of the NRA as called by the 1st Respondent and held on Sunday the 24th day of September 2023. viii.That pending the inter-partes hearing and determination of this Application, the 2nd Respondent be and is hereby restrained/prohibited from acting on, implementing or giving effect to the communication and any other decision or resolution passed on the 24th day of September 2023 in an NDC meeting called and held by the 1st Respondent.

3. On 11th October 2023 when the matter came before the tribunal for mention for purposes of checking compliance and for further directions, the tribunal’s attention was drawn to the Preliminary Objection dated 3rd October 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the PO) filed by the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates on behalf of the 1st and 3rd’s Respondents, and to the Notice of Motion Application dated 11th October 2023 filed by the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.

4. In consideration of the said PO and the Application dated 11th October 2023, the tribunal issued directions for hearing of the PO and application in priority to the application dated 22nd September 2023 referred to above. Accordingly, the same were listed for hearing on 1st November 2023.

5. Parties appeared before the tribunal on the stated date of 1st November 2023 when the PO and the Application were canvassed inter partes. The Complainant was represented by Dr. Miyawa Advocate, the 1st Respondent was represented by Mr. Walumbe Advocate, and the 2nd Respondent was represented by Ms. Ndwiga Advocate holding brief for Mr. Wakoko Advocate. The 3rd Respondent on the other hand had two counsels appear on its behalf, that is, Mr. Walumbe Advocate from the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates, and Mr. Agutu Advocate from the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates. This ruling is therefore in respect to the PO and the Application only.

The Preliminary Objection 6. The PO is premised on grounds, inter alia, that: -i.This Honourable Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine this matter because the Complainant has not used the internal political party dispute resolution mechanisms as required under section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act No. 11 of 2011 (PPA) and Articles 13 and 23 of the NRA Party Constitution.ii.The dispute relates to changes in officials of a political party contemplated under section 20(c) of the Political Parties Act which is a prerogative of the Registrar of Political Parties to make a determination before her decision can be appealed to this Honourable Tribunal.iii.Under the doctrine of ‘exhaustion’, where there is an alternative method of dispute resolution established by legislation, courts must exercise restraint in exercising their jurisdiction conferred by law and must give difference to such dispute resolution mechanisms established by law with the mandate to deal with such specific disputes in the first instance.iv.The Application and Complaint are in contravention of Section 34(1) of the PPA, which confers upon the Registrar of Political Parties the responsibility to, among others, regulate, monitor, investigate and supervise political parties to ensure compliance with the PPA.v.The Application and complaint offend Section 34(1)(g) of the PPA which gives the Registrar of Political parties the mandate to investigate complaints under the PPA.vi.The Complainant has not shown that he has presented his complaint to the Registrar for investigation before resorting to this Honourable Tribunal as envisioned under Section 34(C)(4) of the PPA which provides that a political party that is dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar under subsection (1) may appeal to the Tribunal.vii.The Registrar, being the custodian of records of political parties including the constitution, party officials, office location, and membership, ought to be given a chance to evaluate the resolutions of the party and make a finding as to whether the same were reached procedurally or not. Barring her from receiving and considering resolutions of the party is in effect hindering her from performing her duties outlined under the PPA.viii.The Complainant having failed to exhaust the alternative mechanisms under the PPA, the Complaint violates the constitutional principle/doctrine of exhaustion.ix.The Complaint is therefore premature, and by virtue of the doctrine of ripeness/avoidance, this Honourable Tribunal should exercise restraint and give an opportunity to the Registrar to perform her duties under the PPA.

7. Mr. Walumbe Advocate submitted on the afore-stated grounds and stressed that no IDRM was conducted in accordance with Article 13 of the NRA constitution. He contends that the documentation filed demonstrate that there were 2 parallel NDC meetings that were held, giving rise to two different returns that were presented to the 2nd Respondent, and that the dispute is within the mandate of the 2nd Respondent to handle. He relied on the finding in PPDT Appeal No. 3 of 2014 Federal Party of Kenya vs Registrar of Political Parties, and R vs. Registrar of Political Parties ex-parte Federal Party of Kenya.

8. In response to the PO, Mr. Agutu Advocate, submitted that the PO was not a proper one as it was grounded on contested facts, for instance on the question whether there was IDRM. It is his submission that for the tribunal to ascertain this, evidence must be adduced to prove or disapprove whether IDRM was attempted. He maintains that he has demonstrated in the Replying Affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd Respondent that IDRM was exhausted.

9. Dr. Miyawa Advocate, in response to the PO, referred the tribunal to the Mukisa Biscuit Case and submitted that a PO must be a point of law, and cannot be based on contested factual issues, or where the court’s discretion is sought. According to Counsel, the instant PO raises objection on issues of fact, that is, whether the dispute between the Complainant and the 3rd Respondent on one hand and the 1st Respondent on the other hand was settled within the party mechanisms; whether the dispute related to change of party officials given the NDC meeting of 25th August 2023; whether the 2nd Respondent had investigated the complaints relating to the running of the affairs of NRA; whether the applicant has brought forth any fact showing he lodged complaint with the 2nd Respondent; whether the 2nd Respondent gave any directions in relation to the dispute, amongst others. He submits that these are contested questions of fact that need evidence and cannot therefore be the basis for the PO.

10. As regards submission that this matter is within the mandate of the 2nd Respondent, Dr. Miyawa submitted that the 2nd Respondent has no power under Section 34 of the PPA to discipline an errant member, and that the issue in this complaint required disciplining of an errant member. It is his further submission that Section 40(2) of the PPA simply requires evidence of an attempt at IDRM, which is addressed at paragraphs 12 to 18 of the Replying Affidavit of the Complainant sworn on 19th October 2023. There was a meeting called by the Complainant and adequate time given and it is the 1st Respondent that failed to appear and in the circumstances, the requirement of an attempt at IDRM has been satisfied. He further notes that the first NDC was conducted on 25th August 2023 and by the time the 1st Respondent made an illegal attempt to call another NDC, he had been voted out as Secretary General and for that reason, and also due to the fact that the new officials had not been approved, the 1st Respondent could not constitute a disciplinary hearing of himself. He therefore prays that the PO be dismissed.

The Application 11. Vides a Notice of Motion application dated 11th October 2023 filed by the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates on behalf of the 3rd Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Application), the 3rd Respondent seeks the following orders that:-i.The firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates be restrained by an order of injunction from representing National Reconstruction Alliance Party (NRA) the 3rd Respondent in this suit or any other proceedings therefrom owing to lack of instructions having issued to the said firm of advocates to act on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.ii.That the Memorandum of Appearance dated 3rd October 2023 purporting to enter appearance on behalf of the 3rd Respondent be struck out in that respect together with Notice of Preliminary Objection purported to have been raised on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.iii.That the Court be pleased to grant such or further orders as it deems fit.iv.That costs of the application be borne by the 1st Respondent

12. The Application is based on the grounds cited on the face thereof, and is further supported by the Affidavit sworn by Justice Paul Ayiengah on 11th October 2023. In crux, the 3rd Respondent avers, inter alia, as follows: -i.On 26th September 2023, the 3rd Respondent issued instructions to the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates to represent the party in the proceedings herein. ii. Upon receiving the said instructions, the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates filed a Notice of Appointment of Advocate to represent the 3rd Respondent in the proceedings herein.iii.Upon filing the Notice of Appointment dated 26th September 2023, the same was served upon the parties herein, including the 1st Respondent, whom through email, indicated that the same should be shared with his Advocates, and indicated the email through which the service ought to be effected in that respect.iv.The 3rd Respondent has never issued any instructions to the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates to represent the party on this or any other legal proceedings.v.The on 11th October 2023, the 3rd Respondent learnt through the party’s Advocate on record, Mr. Agutu, that there is law firm purporting to represent the party in these proceedings, and even shared the Memorandum of Appearance and a notice of Preliminary Objection.vi.The interests of the 1st Respondent are adverse to those of the 3rd Respondent and as such, the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates is conflicted. The said firm cannot represent both the 1st and the 3rd Respondent even if the said firm of Advocate was issued with instructions, which is denied.vii.The firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates is conflicted and the continued representation of the 3rd Respondent by the said firm offended the rules of this tribunal and the sacrosanct provisions of both the Evidence Act and the Advocates Act.viii.Owing to the adverse interest of the 1st Respondent and the 3rd Respondent, both parties cannot be represented by the same law firm.ix.The 1st Respondent is at liberty on his personal capacity to retain services of any Advocate, including the services of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates, to represent him in the instant proceedings.x.The Memorandum of Appearance and the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed herein by the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates on behalf of the 3rd Respondent is null and void owing to the fact that the 3rd Respondent did not issue such instruction to the said firm of Advocates, and also the 3rd Respondent had already issued instructions to the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates to represent the party in these proceedings.xi.The 3rd Respondent through the firm of Mr. Agutu, has even responded to the Amended Notice of Motion filed by its National Chairperson, the Complainant herein, and in the said response, the 3rd Respondent has categorically stated that the 1st Respondent is no longer one of its officials, and cannot purport to execute any authority on its behalf.

13. Mr. Agutu Advocate prosecuted the application by expounding on the afore-stated grounds thereof. According to counsel, the appointment of Mr. Walumbe’s law firm to represent the NRA was irregular. He referred the tribunal to the case of Elvis Bank Limited vs. C. Singh & 6 Others which sets principles where an advocate can be disqualified or restrained from representing a litigant, that is, where there is possibility an advocate can be called as witness in a case, and where there is a possibility or there exists conflict of interest between two clients, and that there must be real mischief or prejudice that will arise if the law firm continues representing the client. According to Mr. Agutu, the principles in the said case have been satisfied in the instant case. The tribunal was referred to the letter appointing Mr. Walumbe’s law firm which was signed by the 1st Respondent. He adds that the interests of the 1st Respondent and the 3rd Respondent are adverse and cannot be represented by the same law firm as purported in this case. He referred the tribunal to the minutes of the NEC meeting annexed to the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit that allegedly appointed Mr. Walumbe’s law firm and submitted that the composition of members present in the subject NEC meeting was not in accordance with Article 7 of the NRA Constitution, that there was no notice convening such a meeting, and that the minutes annexed and the appointment letter amounted to forgery. He stated that Mr. Walumbe’s submission that he was on retainer was an issue that brought about conflict of interests. To this end, he relied on the case of King Woolen Mills Ltd (formerly known as Manchester Outfitters Suiting Division Ltd & another v M/s Kaplan & Straton Advocates [1993] eKLR.

14. In response to the application, Mr. Walumbe submitted that given that there are pending NDC returns to be determined by the 2nd Respondent, the persons who instructed the firm of Mr. Agutu had no authority. According to him, the officials of the NRA party are as per the list annexed to the Replying Affidavit sworn by Paul Amemba on 24th October 2023, and that until that procedure contemplated under Section 20 of the PPA is followed in the change of officials, the officials remain as per the stated list. He submits that his law firm was appointed by the officials as per the subject list and that when this Complaint was filed, the Secretary General of NRA communicated instructions to his law firm. He states that Mr. Agutu’s law firm was on the other hand instructed by the Complainant directly, and there is no evidence that the instructions were ratified, and that the complainant is working in conjunction with persons not party officials.

15. Dr. Miyawa on the other hand associated himself with the submissions of Mr. Agutu Advocate in response to the application.

Issues, Analysis and Determination. 16. We have reviewed the parties’ pleadings and submissions on the PO and the application and isolated the following key issues for determination: -i.Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter?ii.Whether the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates should be restrained from representing the 3rd Respondent / Whether the prayers sought in the Notice of Motion Application dated 11th October 2023 are merited?

Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter? 17. Jurisdiction is defined in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed.) Vol. 9 as “…the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for decision.”

18. In Words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol. 3, John Beecroft Saunders also defines jurisdiction as follows:By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognisance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake both these characteristics…. Where a Court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.

19. The place of jurisdiction is settled in law as demonstrated by the locus classicus case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd. (1989) 1, where Justice Nyarangi J held that:“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction…Where a court takes it upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.”

20. As demonstrated, jurisdiction is sacrosanct, as it pertains to the powers that a Tribunal has to hear and determine matters that are brought before it. Without jurisdiction, any orders made by this Tribunal amounts to a nullity ab initio. As such, before this Tribunal delves into the question raised in the Application, that is, whether the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates should be restrained from representing the 3rd Respondent in this suit, we must first satisfy ourselves that we are possessed of the jurisdiction empowering us to do so. We state so also bearing in mind that the PO has been raised on behalf of not only the 3rd Respondent but also the 1st Respondent whose representation is not in contest.

21. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal flows from Article 169 (1) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya as read together with Section 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011, which provides as follows: -1. The Tribunal shall determine—a.disputes between the members of a political party;b.disputes between a member of a political party and the political party;c.disputes between political parties;d.disputes between an independent candidate and a political party;e.disputes between coalition partners;f.appeals from decisions of the Registrar under this Act; and(fa)disputes arising out of party nominations2. Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Tribunal shall not hear or determine a dispute under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), or (fa) unless a party to the dispute adduces evidence of an attempt to subject the dispute to the internal political party dispute resolution mechanisms.3. A coalition agreement shall provide for internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

22. From the foregoing provisions of Section 40(1)(a) and (b) as read together with Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act, it is clear to us that disputes between members of a political party and between a member of a political party and the political party must be subjected to internal dispute resolution mechanisms (IDRM) prior to moving this tribunal.

23. As already highlighted above, the 1st Respondent and 3rd Respondent (through Mr. Walumbe Advocate) have contended that the instant dispute was not subjected to IDRM in accordance with the PPA, which contention has been disputed by the Complainant. The Respondents have in addition submitted that the instant dispute is in any event within the mandate of the 2nd Respondent and not this tribunal.

24. As we consider the PO and the parties’ rival submissions, our attention is drawn to the meaning of a preliminary objection. A preliminary objection was defined in the case of Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company limited v West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696 as:“... So far as I am aware, a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration… a preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion’.”

25. The above position has been fortified in numerous judicial authorities including the case of Oraro vs. Mbaja (2005) KLR 141 and County Government of Migori vs INB Management Consulting Ltd [2019] eKLR.

26. From the parties’ rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the PO urged before us has been premised on various facts that are contested and require ascertainment. As already highlighted above, the contested facts include, whether the substance of the dispute relates to alleged breaches of the party constitution by the 1st Respondent or a change of party officials by the Registrar; who are the legitimate party officials/organ to handle IDRM and/or whether the dispute was subjected to IDRM in accordance with the party constitution; whether a Complaint was lodged with the 2nd Respondent regarding the affairs of NRA party and the dispute subject hereof; whether the 2nd Respondent investigated the complaints relating to the running of the affairs of NRA; whether the 2nd Respondent gave any directions in relation to the dispute, amongst others. Needless to note, this Complaint will ultimately turn around these contested facts which we cannot ascertain at this stage before hearing the parties substantively lest we prejudice or prejudge the Complaint or response.

27. In light of our observation that we are not able to ascertain the contested facts at this stage, it is our considered view that the PO is not a proper PO as defined in the Mukisa Biscuits Case (supra). Accordingly, we find that the preliminary objection dated 3rd October 2023 filed on behalf of the 1st and 3rd Respondents is improper and we overrule the same.

Whether the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates should be restrained from representing the 3rd Respondent in this suit / Whether the prayers sought in the Notice of Motion Application dated 11th October 2023 are merited? 28. Having overruled the PO, we will now delve in to the application and the question of the 3rd Respondent’s representation.

29. The right to representation is provided under Article 50 (2) (g) and (h) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 which state as follows:(2)Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right—(g)to choose, and be represented by, an advocate, and to be informed of this right promptly;(h)to have an advocate assigned to the accused person by the State and at State expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;

30. The right to choose an advocate was extensively discussed in the case of Chacha Mwita -vs- Republic CRA 33 of 2019 and Migori CR Appeal 44 of 2019, where Mrima held that;Since the Constitution does not define the word ‘choose’ I will make reference to the Tenth Edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary on how the said word is defined. The said Dictionary does not expressly define the word ‘choose or choice’ but refers one to ‘Freedom of Choice’ (See page 294 thereof). At page 779 the Dictionary defines ‘freedom’ as follows: -i.The quality, state or condition of being free or liberated esp. the right to do what one wants without being controlled or restricted by anyone.15. The Dictionary further defines ‘Freedom of Choice’ as ‘the liberty embodied in the exercise of one’s right’. The Second Edition of the Law Dictionary has the following to say about the ‘Freedom of Choice’: -Unfettered right to do what one wants when one wants as one wants, except where it infringes or prevents another from doing what that one wants, and do so on. Also excluded is doing something that would harm one’s self or another.

31. As demonstrated, litigants have the discretion over their choice of representation and the Court/Tribunal may not infringe except under clear limitations as provided by law.

32. In the present matter, two law firms, namely, Agutu & Company Advocates, and K. Walumbe & Company Advocates, claim to have instructions to represent the 3rd Respondent. Mr. Agutu Advocate has in fact filed the application challenging the legality of the purported instruction to Mr. Walumbe and also raising allegations of conflict of interest. To this end, he seeks to bar the law firm of Mr. Walumbe from representing the 3rd Respondent. In response, Mr. Walumbe has similarly challenged the instructions purportedly issued to Mr. Agutu to represent the 3rd Respondent.

33. In consideration of the submission that conflict of interest is likely to arise when the firm of K. Walumbe represents the 3rd Respondent in this matter, we have considered the pleadings and evidence and, applying the tests in the case of David M. Mereka T/A Mereka & Company Advicates vs County Government of Nairobi (2021) eKLR, which case relied on the cases of Delphis Bank Limited vs. Channan Signh Chatthe and 6 Others (2005) eKLR, and Albert Chaurembo Mumba & 7 Others vs. Maurice M. Munyao & 148 Others (2015) eKLR, we arrive at the conclusion that the submission is bereft of a factual foundation and devoid of merit for want of substantiation.

34. Be that as it may, from our examination of the parties’ rival submissions on this issue, we find it inescapable to reach the conclusion that the contest on representation of the 3rd Respondent is in fact primarily occasioned by different factions within the party, both claiming authority to instruct counsel to represent the NRA party.

35. It therefore follows that in all fairness, this question cannot be addressed conclusively at this stage without reaching a finding on the legitimate party officials. As we had already observed, we do not wish to make statements that may prejudice or prejudge the complaint/response. To avoid this situation, and noting that the affidavits filed reflect the rival positions by the different factions claiming interest in the 3rd Respondent, we are of the considered view that it is in the interest of justice that all persons instructing the competing law firms are allowed an opportunity to participate in these proceedings. This will ensure that the tribunal is equipped with sufficient information that will assist in making a holistic determination of the dispute in the interest of all parties hereto.

36. Therefore, balancing all interests, we have elected to make the conscious decision that we will consider all the pleadings and evidence filed by both law firms claiming to represent the 3rd Respondent from the different factions within the party.Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion application dated 11th October 2023.

37. As regards costs of the preliminary objection and the application, we are of the considered view that the circumstances of the case require each party to bear its own costs.

Disposition 38. In light of the foregoing, we order as follows: -i.That the preliminary objection dated 3rd October 2023 filed by the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates on behalf of the 1st and 3rd’s Respondents be and is hereby overruled.ii.That the Notice of Motion Application dated 11th October 2023 filed by the firm of Agutu & Company Advocates on behalf of the 3rd Respondent be and is hereby dismissed.iii.That the firm of K. Walumbe & Company Advocates and Agutu & Company Advocates are both at liberty to continue representing the interests of the different factions of the 3rd Respondent.iv.Each party to bear its own costs.Orders accordingly.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. ………………………………………………HON. DESMA NUNGO HSCCHAIRPERSON………………………………………………HON. STEPHEN MUSAUMEMBER………………………………………………HON. MUZNA JINMEMBER………………………………………………HON. ABDIRAHMAN ADAN ABDIKADIRMEMBER