Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR involving the Senate is to ensure that counties, as far as possible, get to effectively participate in the legislative business at the national level in matters substantially affecting interests of county governments. This calls for the court to look beyond the substance or purpose of the statute expressed in the text. The court must unbundle the specific provisions of the proposed legislation to see if and to what extent they satisfy the criteria set out under Article 110(1) of the Constitution. An amendment to the Act affecting the manner in which money is allocated to the CDF is the core part of the Act. As the availability of money affects the financing and implementation of projects that fall within the competence of the county government, the provision cannot be severed without undermining the entire Act. The CDF (Amendment) Bill is not an insubstantial amendment. We therefore find and declare that the CDF (Amendment) Bill unconstitutional for want of involvement by the Senate and we so declare.” 701. As we understand it, the term “concerning counties” has a wide meaning. According to the Supreme Court, the phrase: “…creates room for the Senate to participate in the passing of bills in the exclusive functional areas of the national government, for as long as it can be shown that such bills have provisions affecting the functional areas of the county governments.” 702. We, however, do not think that the jurisdiction of the Senate extends to each and every legislation passed by the National Assembly. To so hold would render Article 110 of the Constitution redundant. It is difficult to think of any legislation that does not touch on counties. The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution does indeed give a wide array of functions to the counties. Those functions, in our view, do not include a national population register. It is therefore our finding and holding that the impugned amendments did not require the involvement of the Senate in their enactment. That is not to say that the bill should not have been subjected to the procedure identified by the Supreme Court in The Speaker of the Senate and Another and the Attorney General and Others, (supra). 703. In closing on this issue, we observe that while the Petitioners have argued that the Bill was not subjected to the process enunciated by the Supreme Court in The Speaker of the Senate and Another and the Attorney General and Others, (supra)., the issue was not in their pleadings. As expected, therefore, the Respondents did not reply to it. It would therefore be unfair to make a determination on it in light of the principle of the right to a hearing. 704. It is our finding therefore and we so hold that, in light of the above analysis, the impugned amendments did not concern counties. As such, we find no merit in the Petitioners’ case that the impugned amendments failed the constitutional test for non-involvement of the Senate in the process of their enactment. Whether there is Violation and/or Threatened Violation of the Right to Privacy. 705. All the Petitioners urged on the risks and threats of the impugned amendments and of NIIMS to the right to privacy, and of the insufficiency of the legal protection of the personal information collected through NIIMS. The Respondents countered these averments by inter alia explaining that the design of NIIMS will ensure adequate security of data collected and that there are existing laws for data protection. The arguments made by the parties in this regard have been collapsed to four sub issues: (a) Whether the personal information collected pursuant to the impugned amendments to the Registration of Persons Act is excessive, intrusive, and disproportionate to the stated objectives of NIIMS. (b) Whether there are sufficient legal safeguards and data protection frameworks for the personal information that is collected in NIIMS (c) Whether the impugned amendments to the Registration of Persons Act are an unreasonable and http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 114/174