62 referendum (Regulation 39E, Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 as amended by the Elections (Registration of Voters) (Amendment) Regulations, 2017). 3.3.2.4Other jurisdictions such as Canada and South Africa have also affirmed prisoners’ right to vote. In the case of Sauvé v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) (2002) 3 SCR 519, 2002 SCC 68, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the government’s arguments that denying penitentiary inmates the right to vote sends an ‘educative message’ about the importance of respect for the law to inmates and to the citizenry at large. The Court held at paragraph 41 as follows: I conclude that denying penitentiary inmates the right to vote is more likely to send messages that undermine respect for the law and democracy than messages that enhance those values. The government’s novel political theory that would permit elected representatives to disenfranchise a segment of the population finds no place in a democracy built upon principles of inclusiveness, equality, and citizen participation. That not all self-proclaimed democracies adhere to this conclusion says little about what the Canadian vision of democracy embodied in the Charter permits. Punitive dis-enfranchisement of inmates does not send the “educative message” that the government claims; to the contrary, it undermines this message and is incompatible with the basic tenets of participatory democracy contained in and guaranteed by the Charter. 3.3.2.5 In Arnold Keith August & Another v Electoral Commission & Others, CCT 8/99 [1999] ZACC 3, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled in favour of the right to vote for prisoners. Regarding the special arrangements by the electoral management body to facilitate voting by prisoners and the apprehension of additional difficulties and expenses associated with the same, the Court stated as follows: There are a variety of ways in which enfranchisement of prisoners could be achieved in practice. Polling stations could be set up in the prisons or special votes could be provided to prisoners. Prisoners are literally a captive population, living in a disciplined and closely monitored environment, regularly being counted and recounted. The Commission should have little difficulty in ensuring that those who are eligible to vote are registered and given the opportunity to vote, and that the objective of achieving an easily managed poll on election day is accomplished. 3.4 Procurement of Election Technology and Materials 3.4.1 The IEBC is required to procure the technology to be deployed in elections in an open and transparent manner (Article 227 of the Constitution; s 3, Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015; s 44(4)(a), Elections Act, 2011). Such technology must, in addition, be procured ‘in consultation with relevant agencies, institutions and stakeholders, including political parties…’ (s 44(5), Elections Act, 2011). In Republic v IEBC & 3 Others ex parte Coalition for Reforms and Democracy, Nairobi High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 637 of 2016, the Court explained the need for holding consultations before procuring election technology in the following words: …the provisions of section 38 of the Political Parties Act ought to be put into motion and implemented and the Political Parties Liaison Committee activated and booted up as it were in order to avoid unnecessary tensions and suspicions between the Independent Electoral Commission (sic) and Boundaries Commission, the Registrar of Political Parties and the political parties themselves…It must be appreciated that the process of general election is as much a political process as it is legal. Perception therefore plays a not too minor role in the said process. It is therefore as much important for the process to be fair as it is to be seen as fair. It is therefore crucial that a continuous BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION