A parliamentary aspirant in Bomet County has challenged the proposed change of name of The Equitable Party to Linda Mwananchi Movement, citing possible procedural violations by the party organs.
Festus Ruto, who is eyeing the Chepalungu parliamentary seat, has asked the Registrar of Political Parties to verify whether the party complied with its constitution before approving the rebranding.
In written submissions dated October 21, Ruto cites five procedural concerns, including the absence of publicly available evidence of approval by a National Delegates Conference (NDC), the validity of the party’s October 8 National Executive Committee (NEC) resolution and compliance with statutory requirements on public representations.
The objection follows Gazette Notice No. 16427, through which the proposed change of name was published for public representations under Section 20 of the Political Parties Act.
Ruto says his challenge is not directed at the proposed name itself but at whether the process leading to its adoption complies with the law and the party’s registered constitution.
“I do not assert that no such meeting or approval exists; rather, I respectfully ask the Registrar to verify the position from the party’s official records,” he wrote in his submission.
He argues that there is no publicly available proof that an NDC subsequently met to approve the rebranding.
Ruto says publicly available information indicates that the NEC met on October 8 and resolved to pursue the change.
Documents reportedly submitted to the Registrar included the meeting notice, signed attendance list, NEC resolution, statutory Form PP10 and evidence that the proposal had been published in a local daily on October 10 and on the party’s website.
Ruto says the Registrar initiated the gazettement process and required the party to report representations received from the public and explain how they had been addressed after the applicable 14-day period from the newspaper publication.
His central argument concerns Article 10.3 of The Equitable Party’s constitution, which he says distinguishes between the NEC’s role in proposing amendments and the NDC’s authority to approve them.
According to Ruto, Article 10.3.1 provides for proposals affecting the party’s name, symbol, colours, constitution and rules to be presented to the NDC for approval.
He also cites Articles 10.3.2 and 10.3.3 as prescribing enhanced quorum and voting requirements, including a two-thirds threshold.
He argues that the October 8 NEC resolution may have initiated the amendment process but should not be treated as final approval if the constitution requires a separate decision by the NDC.
“The NEC resolution of 8 October may properly constitute the proposal or initiation of the amendment process contemplated by Article 10.3,” he writes.
He, however, adds that this step should not be considered conclusive evidence that all internal constitutional requirements have been met.
Ruto further wants the Registrar to establish whether any NDC relied upon by the party was properly convened, with adequate notice, the required composition of delegates, a valid quorum and the prescribed voting threshold.
He has asked the Registrar to verify documentary evidence of compliance before recording the proposed changes as final and to ensure that the party addresses his representations under Section 20 of the Act.
The challenge comes after Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna announced plans to rebrand The Equitable Party to the Linda Mwananchi Movement.
“In the coming days and as has been resolved by the principals of Linda Mwananchi, we shall be seeking to rebrand this party, The Equitable Party, to the Linda Mwananchi Movement because the Linda Mwananchi Movement is a movement that you have built individually,” Sifuna said during the launch on October 4, 2026.
However, Sifuna said the party would retain its existing identity going into the 2027 elections if obstacles to the rebranding persisted.
Ruto says his submission is intended to ensure compliance with the law and the party’s constitution, rather than to declare the proposed name unlawful or assert that the required delegates’ meeting never occurred.
