Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR NIIMS system are pictorial representations with no source codes and which have little meaning to a technical person, while the low level diagrams are detailed with specifications and functionalities of every section of the system. The 6th Respondent’s Case 485. The 6th Respondent is the Speaker of the National Assembly, an ex-officio member of the National Assembly by dint of Article 97(1) (d) of the Constitution, and by dint of Article 107 of the Constitution, presides over sittings of the National Assembly. The 6th Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition all dated 20th February, 2019, a Replying Affidavit dated 28th February, 2019 and a Supplementary Affidavit dated 2nd May, 2019 all sworn by Mr. Michael Sialai. 486. Mr. Sialai averred that he is the Clerk of the National Assembly, an office in the Parliamentary Service Commission constitutionally mandated to run the operations and affairs of the National Assembly under Article 127 and 128 of the Constitution. It is further charged with providing technical and procedural advice to the Speaker and Members of the National Assembly on parliamentary practices and procedures. 487. In the Grounds of Opposition, the 6th Respondent contended that the Petitioners’ actions were in bad faith as the impugned amendments were assented to by the President on 31st December 2018 and the Petitioners were therefore guilty of inordinate delay in instituting these proceedings which were time barred under the provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act. Further, it was contended that the National Assembly’s mandate to enact, amend and repeal laws is derived from the Constitution and the Petitions threaten the legislative role of Parliament and specifically the National Assembly’s mandate under Articles 1(1), 94 and 95 of the Constitution. The 6th Respondent took the position that the Petitioners seek to restrict the National Assembly from carrying out its constitutional mandate derived from Article 95 (3) of the Constitution of enacting the impugned amendments. 488. It was also contended that the present Petitions contravene Article 109 of the Constitution which mandates Parliament to enact, amend or repeal any law through Bills passed and assented to by the President. The 6th Respondent asserted that there was adequate public participation in the process of enactment of the impugned amendments, but be that as it may, the process of enactment of legislation is not an administrative action falling within the purview of Article 47 of the Constitution or the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. 489. His contention was that in the context of legislation, what is required is that the legislature facilitates public participation on the Bill under consideration by the House. Further, that Article 94 (5) of the Constitution provides that only Parliament has the power to make provisions having the force of law in Kenya, and all the legislation passed by Parliament are presumed constitutional unless such presumption is rebutted. Accordingly, sections 3, 5 and 9A introduced to the Act through the impugned amendments are constitutional and properly enacted by the legislative arm of government and the burden falls on the person who alleges otherwise to rebut this presumption. 490. Mr. Sialai contended further that the process of national registration of persons is a policy decision solely within the mandate of the Executive and enacted by Parliament. He asserted that this Court is therefore ill-equipped to determine matters of policy, the economy and the proper mode of national registration process as the Petitioners ask the Court to do. In any event, according to the 6th Respondent, in determining the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament, the Court should look at the purpose and effect of the impugned statute and if the purpose and/or the effect of the statute do not infringe on a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the statute is not unconstitutional. In his view, the consolidated Petitions have not disclosed how the Constitution is violated by sections 3, 5 and 9A introduced to the Act through the impugned amendments. 491. In his affidavits, Mr. Sialai gave the chronology of events leading to the enactment of the impugned amendments. He averred that on Wednesday, 18th April 2018, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 72/174