Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR procedure used in passing the impugned amendments and which confirms full compliance with the Constitution. 604. The 6th Respondent stresses the legislative autonomy of the National Assembly by citing Articles 94 and 109 of the Constitution. It is his case that the two houses of Parliament can exercise their legislative will by enacting laws and amending existing laws as well as Bills which are before them. He states that it was in exercise of that power that the National Assembly debated and passed the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (National Assembly Bill No. 12 of 2018) and the President assented to the Bill to become law. 605. With respect to the assertion by the Petitioners that there was no compliance with the principle of public participation in the enactment of the impugned amendments, the 6th Respondent submits that the National Assembly conducted public participation and took the views of the public into account as evidenced by the replying affidavit of Mr. Michael Sialai. He cites the decision in the Robert Gakuru Case as stating the law on the principle of public participation and points out that the said decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is his submission that the decisions in the Robert Gakuru Case and the 2016 Law Society Case confirm the principle that not all persons must express their views on the proposed legislation in order for the principle of public participation to be satisfied. 606. The 6th Respondent maintains that the requirement for public participation was met. He points out that during the process of the enactment of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment), 2018 each National Assembly Departmental Committee was tasked to examine each amendment as if they were distinct legislations. He further argues that in the advertisement calling for submission of comments, each thematic area was distinctively before a relevant departmental committee as per the Second Schedule of the National Assembly Standing Orders. It is also his submission that in the newspaper advertisements, the committee to deal with each subject matter was indicated hence giving guidance to the public on where to make representations. 607. The 6th Respondent, reiterates in his submissions the averments by Mr. Sialai that each proposed amendment was treated separately since, during debates on the Bill, the Chairpersons of the respective committees were given time to indicate views of the committees and the public; that unlike in the past where all the amendments were moved by the Chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, in this instance, the Chairpersons of the relevant committees moved their respective amendments. It is his submission that these were deliberate adjustments of the rules of procedure to accommodate examination of the amendments by the House. 608. In its submissions, the 1st Interested Party agrees with the Respondents that the legislative process of the impugned amendments was not attended by any constitutional infirmity. On the issue of public participation, its submission is that the 6th Respondent’s affidavits particularly demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that advertisements were placed in the print media inviting members of the public to submit memoranda on the Bill that culminated in the enactment of the impugned amendments. 609. The 1st Interested Party urges the court to give space to Parliament to discharge its constitutional mandate. It cites in support of this argument the South African case of Land Access Movement of South Africa Association for Rural Development and others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and others (supra) in which it was observed that when determining the question whether Parliament’s conduct was reasonable, some deference should be paid to what Parliament considered appropriate in the circumstances. This is on the basis that the power to determine how participation in the legislative process will be facilitated rests upon Parliament. The 1st Interested Party also relies on The 2016 Law Society Case in which it was stated that with regard to public participation, the court has to look at the entire process and Parliamentary Standing Orders. The 1st Interested Party concludes that the Petitioners have not demonstrated that the law was not followed in the enactment of the impugned amendments and calls for the dismissal of the Petitions. 610. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties on the question whether the principle of public http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 94/174