[2022] KEPPDT 986 (KLR)

Odiele v Chairperson Elections Board, Ford-Kenya Party & another; Gure (Interested Party) (Complaint E106 (NRB) of 2022) [2022] KEPPDT 986 (KLR) (Civ) (6 August 2022) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEPPDT 986 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal

Civil

Complaint E106 (NRB) of 2022

D. Nungo, Chair, K.W Mutuma, FM Mtuweta & Ruth Wairimu Muhoro, Members

August 6, 2022

Between

Beatrice Mugeni Odiele

Complainant

and

The Chairperson Elections Board, Ford-Kenya Party

1st Respondent

Ford Kenya-Party

2nd Respondent

and

Hon Anab Mohamed Gure

Interested Party

Judgment

1. The Complainant is a member of the 2nd Respondent. She has challenged the membership and the nomination of the Interested Party to the 2nd Respondent’s National Assembly Party List in the number 1 position and seeks the following orders from this Tribunal:-a.A declaration, be and is hereby issued, that the Interested Party is not qualified and/or eligible to be on the 2nd Respondent’s National Assembly Party List.b.An Order be issued that the name of the Interested Party, the Hon. Anab Mohamed Gure, be and is hereby expunged from the 2nd Respondent’s National Assembly Party List;c.Costs of the Application and Complaint be awarded to the Complainant/Applicant.

2. The Complaint is opposed by the 2nd Respondent and Interested Party who filed their responses in reply and opposition thereto. The 1st Respondent did not enter appearance despite service.

3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal, this matter came up for hearing on August 5, 2022 where all parties made their respective oral submissions.

4. The Complainant was represented by GS Law LLP Advocates, the 2nd Respondent was represented by M/s Njoroge Wachira & Co. Advocates, and the Interested Party was represented by Messes, Ogle & Associates Advocates.

5. The Complainant contends that the Respondents violated the Law and the party Constitution by including the Interested Party in the National Assembly Party List in the number 1 position. She claims the Interested party had not applied to be included in the National Assembly Party list.

6. Her complaint is premised on Sections 34(6), 34(8) and 35 of the Elections Act, Article 22 of the Party Constitution and Sections 49 and 52 of the Nominal and Election Rules of the Party.

7. She avers that the Interested Party, is the current Member of Parliament under Jubilee Party, and has not demonstrated active contribution to the 2nd Respondent Party as required in Section 52 of the Nomination and Election Rules of the Party. She further avers that the Interested party had not resigned from the Jubilee Party to join the 2nd Respondent Party as a member in accordance with Section 14 of the Political Parties Act.

8. She avers that according to Article 103(1)(e)(i) of theConstitution, the office of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant if, having been elected to Parliament— as a member of a political party, the member resigns from that party or is deemed to have resigned from the party as determined in accordance with the legislation contemplated in clause (2). The Interested Party’s office has never been vacant or declared as such and the logical conclusion is that she has never resigned from Jubilee Party in accordance with the law, and thus not available for selection on the 2nd Respondent’s National Assembly Party List.

9. She claims she lodged a complaint to the 1st Respondent dated July 29, 2022 and the party has refused to undo its illegality or respond to the complaint.

10. She challenges the Interested Party’s qualification for election under the 2ndRespondent’s Party list for following reasons;a.Section 28 of the Elections Act provides that a political party that nominates a person for an election under this Act shall submit to the Commission a membership list of the party—in the case of a general election, at least one hundred and twenty days before the date of the election; and in the case of a by-election, forty-five days before the date of the by-election.b.The membership list submitted to the Commission is the one used for purposes of nomination for election through the vote or party list.c.Having participated in the party primaries of UDA, the Interested Party was thus in UDA for purposes of the General Election.d.She could not also be on the Ford-Kenya Membership List at the same time for the purpose of the August 9th General Election.e.Further, it is undisputed that she has not been a member of the Party for 6 months and thus disqualified under Article 22 of the Party Constitution.1. In her Supplementary Affidavit dated August 5, 2022, she claims she attempted IDRM as mandated by Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act 2011 (PPA). She further avers that Section 35A(3) of the Elections Act provides that disputes relating to certification of party lists should be referred to this Tribunal and there is no requirement for exhaustion of internal dispute resolution mechanisms (IDRM) in such disputes.2. She avers that there was no evidence of the Interested Party submitting a Notice of resignation to the clerk of the National Assembly. Section 14(3) provides that the political party of which the person is a member, the member, or the clerk of the relevant House of Parliament, or of a County Assembly of which the person is a member, shall notify the Registrar of such resignation within seven days of the resignation.3. She further avers that the Interested Party is not a person with disability (PWD), is not a youth having been born in 1982, is not from an ethnic minority, and is not representing the workers. She is from the Somali ethnic group which is not a minority ethnic group.

14. It is deposed in the 2nd Respondent’s Replying affidavit sworn by Mr. Chrisanthus W. Wamalwa, the Secretary General to the 2nd Respondent, that the 1st Respondent was set up to deal with party primaries and its mandate ended after the conclusion of party primaries hence their non-representation in these proceedings.

15. The 2nd Respondent raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear and determine this Complainant. The 2nd Respondent submitted that there was no evidence of an attempt at IDRM by the Complainant as mandated by Section 40 (2) of the Political Parties Act and Article 238 of the 2nd Respondent’s party Constitution. Rule 27 of the Elections (Part Primaries and Party Lists) Regulations, 2017 mandates every political party to establish internal dispute resolution mechanisms in relation to party list, to hear and determine all nomination disputes.

16. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Complaint, as the 2nd Respondent’s IDRM had not been moved by the Complainant or anyone, in regards to the inclusion of the Interested Party to the party list submitted on July 21, 2022 or June 25, 2022.

17. On merits, the 2nd Respondent’s position is that the Interested party made an application for nomination to the party list on June 10, 2022. On 25th June 2022 in compliance with section 35 of theElection Act, 45 days before the general election, the 2nd Respondent submitted to the IEBC, party list, including the Interested party. There was no dispute lodged challenging her inclusion to the list. On July 16, 2022, the IEBC rejected and returned all the party lists to the respective parties for compliance with the Constitution, Elections Act, and Regulations. On July 21, 2022, after reviewing the party lists and making minor changes in compliance with the IEBC directions, the 2nd Respondent submitted the party lists to the IEBC.

18. The 2nd Respondent submits that unlike the Interested Party who is a registered member of the 2nd Respondent, the Complainant is not a member of the 2nd Respondent. He claims that the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties (0RPP) sent a communique to the effect that pursuant to the amendments to the Political parties Act, a person is required to be a member of a political party by March 26, 2022 and that the Interested party was a member of the 2nd Respondent from March 23, 2022. He attached a confirmation from the ORPP confirming that the interested party was a member of the 2nd Respondent since 23rd March 2022.

The Interested Party’s Case 19. The Interested Party also raised a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. He claims there was no attempt at IDRM by the Complainant as mandated by Section 40(2) of PPA, Article 88(4) (e) of the Constitution of Kenya and section 74(1) of the Elections Act.

20. The Interested party maintains that she is a registered bonafide member of the 2nd Respondent having resigned from the Jubilee Party and from the United Democratic Alliance Party. She annexed a confirmation from ORPP of her membership in the 2nd Respondent party on 23rd March 2022, resignation letter addressed to Jubilee, her application for nomination to the party list and her credentials.

21. She submits that on June 10, 2022, she made an application through Form 2 of the 2nd Respondent Nomination Rules to be included in the party list of nominees to the National Assembly. She was nominated by the 2nd Respondent for the National Assembly seat in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 35 of the Election Act 2011.

Analysis and Determination 22. We have reviewed the parties’ pleadings and submissions and isolated the following key issues for determination: -i.Whether this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter?ii.Whether the Complaint is merited?iii.What are the appropriate reliefs in the present circumstances?Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter?

23. 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.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, defines jurisdiction as the Court’s power to entertain, hear and determine a dispute before it.

24. In Words and Phrases Legally Defined Vol. 3, John Beecroft Saunders 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.

25. It is a well settled principle in law that jurisdiction is so central in judicial proceedings. A Court acting without jurisdiction is acting in vain. All it engages in is nullity. Nyarangi, JA, in Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1 expressed himself as follows on the issue of jurisdiction: -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…

26. The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Samuel Kamau Macharia Vs KCB & 2 Others, Civil Application No. 2 of 2011 stated as follows on the issue of jurisdiction:“A Court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or Legislation, or both. Thus a Court of Law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by Law.”

27. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is grounded on the provisions of Article 169 (1)d.of the Constitution of Kenya as read together with Section 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011 (hereinafter the PPA) 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; andg.(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.

28. The instant dispute is one arising out of party nominations by way of party lists and therefore falls squarely within the provisions of Section 40(1)(fa) of the PPA.Section 40(2) of the PPA requires all disputes arising out of nominations to be subjected to IDRM prior to moving the Tribunal. The law requires a party to adduce evidence of an attempt thereof before the Tribunal assumes jurisdiction.

29. In this instant case, the Complainant submits that she attempted IDRM by writing to the party Secretary General (SG) a complaint letter dated 29th July 2022 that was received by the party on the same date. The Respondent and the Interested Party on the other hand maintain that there was no IDRM as the Complainant did not lodge any complaint with the 2nd Respondent’s Internal Dispute Resolution Panel established under Chapter 10 of the party Constitution. The Interested party adds that he was not served with any complaint.

30. We have evaluated the pleadings and evidence adduced and whereas we agree with the Respondent and Interested Party that no evidence was furnished of a complaint that was lodged specifically with the Internal Dispute Resolution Panel in accordance with the party rules, we note that the letter dated 29th July 2022 outlines to the party the Complainant’s complaint. We cannot ignore the fact that the 2nd Respondent received the subject letter on 29th July 2022 but did not respond to the same promptly notwithstanding the urgency. The 2nd Respondent should have at the very least responded to the letter or advised the Complainant the right way to go. Such was the consideration of the Court of Appeal in the case of Samuel Kalii Kiminza vs. Jubilee Party & Another (2017) eKLR, where it was observed as follows: -“… 26. Further, we cannot help but note that the Appellant wrote to the 1st Respondent not once but twice and none of these letters elicited any response from the 1st Respondent. The Appellant is a member of the 1st Respondent having paid the requisite fees. The Appellant had also paid Kshs. 250,000/= in order to be eligible to take part in the nomination exercise for the position of Member of the National Assembly for the Kitui South Constituency. We are therefore of the view that the least that the 1st Respondent could have done, taking into account that the appellant was its member, is to respond to the Appellant’s letters and advise him on the right way to go about the appeal. Having failed to do so we hold that the Appellant was entitled to approach the PPDT and that the PPDT therefore had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter…”(emphasis ours)

31. Taking into consideration the totality of the foregoing, we find that the Complainant has adduced evidence of an honest attempt at IDRM and accordingly we have jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

Whether the Complaint is merited? 32. As already highlighted above, the Complainant raised an issue as to whether the interested party resigned from Jubilee party in accordance with the law/whether the interested party is a member of the 2nd Respondent. It was submitted that the Interested Party did not resign from the Jubilee party in accordance with Section 14(1) of the PPA as read together with Article 103 of the Constitution of Kenya due to the fact that she remains a Member of Parliament (MP) under the Jubilee party ticket, that no notice of her resignation was submitted to the clerk of the National Assembly and her seat was not declared vacant. It was further submitted that there was a requirement that persons who qualify for nomination should have been party members by 26th March 2022 and the Complainant only became a member on 23rd March 2022, barely three days before the deadline. That pursuant to Article 22 of the party constitution, such a privilege could only be given to those who had been party members for 6 months. That there was no demonstratable active contribution to the party by the interested party.

33. In response to the above, the Respondent and Interested Party’s position is that the Interested Party resigned from the Jubilee party and successfully applied to be a member of the 2nd Respondent. They have annexed both the resignation letter and the search from the ORPP. They maintain that the fact that the Interested Party joined the membership of the 2nd Respondent on 23rd March 2022 and therefore complied with the requirement of being a party member by 26th March 2022.

34. On this issue of membership, we have looked at Section 14 (1), (2), (3) and (3A) of the Political Parties Act 2011. We have cited it below:

14. Resignation from political party1. A member of a political party who intends to resign from the political party shall give a written notice prior to his resignation to—a.the political party;b.the clerk of the relevant House of Parliament, if the member is a member of Parliament; orc.the clerk of a county assembly, if the member is a member of a county assembly.1. The resignation of the member of the political party shall take effect upon receipt of such notice by the political party or clerk of the relevant House or county assembly.2. The political party of which the person is a member, the member, or the clerk of the relevant House of Parliament or of a county assembly of which the person is a member shall notify the Registrar of such resignation within seven days of the resignation.(3A) Upon receiving the notification under subsection (3), the Registrar shall cause the name of such member to be removed from the membership list of that political party. (Emphasis is ours) 35. These provisions are clear and unambiguous. On the face of facts presented by the interested party, she served a notice of resignation that was in written form. It was received by Jubilee Party and was stamped on 3rd March 2022. Subsequently, the ORPP updated its records as per the search which shows that the Interested Party is a registered member of the 2nd Respondent as at 23rd March 2022. Under the provisions cited above, the Interested Party’s notice took effect upon receipt by Jubilee Party. In William Omondi v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others, Petition No. 288 of 2014 reported in [2014] eKLR, Justice Lenaola, as he then was, dealt with a similar issue. He was of the view that resignation of a member from a political party takes effect, becomes operational and comes into force when the political party receives the letter of resignation.

36. Similarly in Peter Gatawa Munyoga & 9 others v Moses Ndung’u Mwangi & another [2017] eKLR, the court held:-“…To settle this issue, it is my considered view that the Petitioners have failed to prove, on a balance of probability, that the 1st Respondent is, and was, a member of the Jubilee Party at all material times relevant to this case. The Petitioners have failed to enjoin the Jubilee Party to these proceedings to provide evidence that the 1st Respondent did not resign and is still a member of it, or that the letter of resignation was not received by that Party or that the Party’s Stamp was forced or stolen. I find evidence by the 1st Respondent that has not been controverted, that he had resigned from the Jubilee Party; that his resignation letter became operative upon receipt by the Jubilee Party on 5th April 2017. The law is clear that it is upon the political party to notify the Registrar of Political Parties of such resignation to enable formalization of the process of removing such a member from the Political Parties records. It is also upon the party to reconcile its records and ensure that such a member’s name is not retained in their record….”

37. We further note that from the record, the interested party became a member of the 2nd Respondent as at 23rd March 2022. This is within the 120 days period stipulated under Section 28 of the Elections Act.

38. Based on the foregoing, it is our view that Complainant has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Interested Party is a member of Jubilee Party. He solely relies on and is inviting us to an interpretation of Article 103 of the Constitution to the effect that her seat held under the Jubilee party ticket was not declared vacant and she continued serving as such. Alive to the tribunal’s jurisdiction as circumscribed under Section 40 of the PPA, we exercise caution in entering into that arena of constitutional interpretation and any resultant declarations. Further and in any event, the fact remains that the interested party resigned from the Jubilee Party, exercised her constitutional rights of association and participation in a political party of her choice, the 2nd Respondent’s Party, and we rely on the official search from the ORPP which confirms that the interested party is a member of the 2nd Respondent. This search has not been challenged.

39. We have further considered the Complainant’s allegations relating to the interested party’s affiliation or association with the UDA and we note that no iota of evidence has been adduced to that effect.

40. With respect to the Complainant’s claim that the interested party did not qualify to be in the party list as she was not a member of the party for a period of 6 months in breach of Article 22 of the party constitution, we note that Article 22 of the party constitution does not relate to qualifications for party lists. As expressly stated therein, it relates to the right to be nominated or elected as a delegate to national, regional and international conference and to be part of selection committees for parliamentary candidates and candidates for other public offices. It is Part 7 of the nomination rules that provide on qualifications and procedure for party lists and it makes no reference to a 6months limitation period. In fact, it acknowledges compliance with the Elections Act which includes Section 28 of the Election Act. As already stated, there was no breach of Section 28 of the Election Act.

41. The other issue was whether the interested party qualified to be one of the top 4 nominees to the national assembly. According to the Complainant, the interested party was neither a youth nor a person living with disability (PWD), and further Somali is not an ethnic minority in Kenya and there was already somebody representing the workers. On this issue, we posit that Article 90 (2)(c) provides that party lists for National Assembly should reflect regional and ethnic diversity of the people of Kenya. Article 97(1)(c) provides that the National Assembly shall consist of twelve members nominated by parliamentary political parties according to their proportion of members of the National Assembly in accordance with Article 90, to represent special interests including the youth, persons with disabilities and workers.

42. Turning to the party list that was published by IEBC on 27th July 2022 subject hereof, we note that the interested party has been nominated to represent special interest group. The Complainant has not demonstrated how the party acted in breach of the afore-mentioned laws in nominating the interested party under the special interest group. The issues surrounding the nature, form and definition of special interests have been raised in our courts severally before. The courts have declined to set any hard and fast rules on who qualifies to be on the party lists and left that to the discretion of the parties, and to checks, by the IEBC for compliance with the constitutional and statutory provisions.

43. In the case of Micah Kigen and 2 others –Vs- Attorney General and 2 others Nairobi Petition No.268 and 398 of 2012 (2012)Eklr the court considered the definition of special interests under the provisions of Article 97(1(c)and it held that “the nature of special interests requiring representation is infinite and various and a political party must be permitted to define those interests from time to time…any special interests may emerge in future and which the political party may consider require representation.”

44. The Complainant having failed to sufficiently plead and demonstrate any allegation of non-compliance by the party in so far as the provisions of Article 90 and 97 of the Constitution are concerned, and further taking into consideration that the IEBC had checked and confirmed compliance prior to the publication of the party list, we find no merit in the complaint in so far as the threshold set under Articles 90 and 97 of the Constitution are concerned.

45. The Complainant has further submitted that the process of arriving at the nominees was not open and transparent, and that, there was no clear criteria for the same. The Respondent on the other hand maintain that there was compliance with the law. Whereas the Complainant generally avers that there was no clear criteria for arriving at nominees, we note that Part 7 of the FORD Kenya Nomination Rules, 2021 provide on qualification and procedure of party lists as follows:-48. The qualifications for the candidates to be in Parliament and County Assembly List shall be the same with exception of the requirements relating to supporters.49. Party List shall be prepared in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya and the Elections Act and shall be on the basis of proportional representation.50. The procedures to be employed in identifying the candidates for nomination shall require that all interested persons seeking to apply for nomination as a Member of National Assembly, Senator and County Assembly representative on a FORD-Kenya Party shall register to the FORD - Kenya Party in respect of any nomination for which these Rules apply and shall;-a.Apply to the National Nominations & Elections Board in the prescribed manner;b.Submit with the application a duly completed and signed Code of Conduct to the Party;c.Answer all questions posed by the Party and avail all information required by the Party in the application.d.Submit his/her application to the National Nominations & Election Board within the timeframe published by the National Nominations & Election Board;e.Pay nomination fee as prescribed in these Rules or as shall be determined by the Management Committee from time to time.49. Upon receipt of the names of applicants by the National Nominations & Elections Board, the NNEB shall compile a list of the Applicants and such list shall be forwarded to the Management Committee. The Management Committee shall then sit as an electoral college and develop a Party List from amongst the applicants list.50. In developing the Party List, the Management Committee shall ensure that, among other factors to be considered, only persons with demonstrable active contribution to the Party qualify to be in the Party List.51. The Management Committee may prescribe other Rules of Procedure in relation to the Party List to complement the provisions herein...”

46. We have looked at the record and it is our considered view that the Complainant has not sufficiently demonstrated which requirement was breached by the 2nd Respondent. In our opinion, the documentation furnished by the interested party demonstrate that there was a process that was applied. The interested party has furnished the Form she submitted together with all her credentials. From the record, we find no basis to doubt the Interested Party’s qualification.

47. We now turn to the question of burden of proof and needless to note, it is a principle of law that whoever lays a claim before the court against another has the burden to prove it. Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act provide as follows:107 “(1) Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.(2)When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.108. The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.”

48. We also refer to The Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 17, at paras 13 and 14: describes it thus:“The legal burden is the burden of proof which remains constant throughout a trial; it is the burden of establishing the facts and contentions which will support a party’s case. If at the conclusion of the trial he has failed to establish these to the appropriate standard, he will lose. The legal burden of proof normally rests upon the party desiring the court to take action; thus a claimant must satisfy the court or tribunal that the conditions which entitle him to an award have been satisfied. In respect of a particular allegation, the burden lies upon the party for whom substantiation of that particular allegation is an essential of his case. There may therefore be separate burdens in a case with separate issues.”(16)The legal burden is discharged by way of evidence, with the opposing party having a corresponding duty of adducing evidence in rebuttal. This constitutes evidential burden. Therefore, while both the legal and evidential burdens initially rested upon the appellant, the evidential burden may shift in the course of trial, depending on the evidence adduced. As the weight of evidence given by either side during the trial varies, so will the evidential burden shift to the party who would fail without further evidence"

49. Based on the law and the foregoing analysis, it is our considered opinion that the Complainant has not proved his claim on a balance of probability and we therefore make a finding that the Claim has no merit.

What are the appropriate reliefs in the present circumstances? 50. Having found that the claim lacks merit, there is no basis for grant of any of the reliefs sought. The claim is for dismissal.

51. Turning to the question of costs, whereas costs follow the event, we have considered the circumstances of this case and in the interest of fostering party unity, we order that each party shall bear its own costs of these proceedings.

Disposition 52. In light of the foregoing, we order as follows: -i.That the Complaint herein be and is hereby dismissed.ii.Each party to bear its own costs.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022. DESMA NUNGO…… …………………………………………(CHAIRPERSON)DR. KENNETH MUTUMA…………….……..……………….(MEMBER)FLORA M. MAGHANGA-MTUWETA…………………….(MEMBER)RUTH WAIRIMU MUHORO………………………………...(MEMBER)