Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR a broad measure of discretion on how it can achieve the object of public participation and how public participation is effected will vary from case to case but that it must be clear that a reasonable level of participation was afforded to the public. They also cite the decision in the South African case of Land Access Movement of South Africa Association for Rural Development and others vs Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and Others (supra) as establishing the law on the parameters to be considered in determining whether the standard of public participation was met by the legislature. 599. In response to the contention that the time allowed for public participation was insufficient, the 4th and 7th Respondents justify the sufficiency of the seven days given for members of public to provide their views by referring to the decision in Simeon Kioko Kitheka & 18 others v County Government of Machakos & 2 others [2018] eKLR where it was observed that “even if the period is short but it is shown that the petitioner did in fact participate in the enactment of the Bill, the Court would be reluctant to nullify the enactment in the absence of any evidence that a member of the public was as a result of the short notice locked out from presenting his views.” They submit that no evidence was adduced by the Petitioners to the effect that a member of the public was locked out from presenting their views. They place reliance for this contention on the averment of Michael Sialai in the supplementary affidavit sworn on 2nd May, 2019 on behalf of the 6th Respondent that stakeholders, including the Petitioners and the Interested Parties supporting the Petitions, were promptly invited for stakeholders’ meetings which were held between 7th May, 2018 and 20th June, 2018. They therefore conclude that there was sufficient public participation. 600. On its part, the 5th Respondent submits that contrary to the claim by the Petitioners, the doctrine of public participation was complied with in the enactment of the impugned amendments. The Robert Gakuru Case and Doctors for Life Case as well as Minister of Health and Another v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others(2006) (2) SA 311 (CC); Land Access Movement of South Africa Association for Rural Development and others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provincesand others (supra) ; Ngige Tharau & 128 Others v Principal Secretary of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & 2 others[2016] eKLR; Diani Business Welfare Association and Others v The County Government Of Kwale [2015] eKLR; and Nairobi Metropolitan PSV Saccos Union Ltd & 25 Others v County Government of Nairobi & 3 Others [2014] eKLR are cited as espousing the law on public participation. 601. The 5th Respondent agrees with the other Respondents that the invitation for comments on the Statute (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2018 published in the Standard and Daily Nation newspapers is evidence of public participation. He further argues that oral and written comments were received from various state agencies and the affected stakeholders. On that basis, the 5th Respondent urges the Court to hold that reasonable opportunity was granted to the members of the public to have a say on the impugned amendments. 602. The 6th Respondent, not surprisingly, submits passionately on the issue of the alleged unconstitutionality of the impugned amendments. He starts by highlighting the principles for constitutional interpretation, noting, inter alia, that in considering the constitutionality of an Act or a provision thereof, the rebuttable principle of presumption of constitutionality of statutes should be taken into account. He further submits that the principle which states that statutes should be presumed to be constitutional until the contrary is proved is founded on the philosophy that Parliamentarians, as peoples’ representatives, legislate laws to serve the people they represent and therefore, as legislators, they understand the problems people face and enact laws to solve the problems. It is further the 6th Respondent’s case that Article 186(4) of the Constitution gives powers to Parliament to legislate on any matter for the Republic of Kenya. 603. While referring to the facts of the case and the contents of the replying affidavit by Mr. Michael Sialai, the Clerk of the National Assembly, the 6th Respondent submits that the evidence clearly reveals that the impugned amendments were enacted in accordance with the Constitution. Accordingly, the impugned sections of the Act are constitutional. The 6th Respondent points to the contents of the replying affidavit which he submits detail the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 93/174