Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 1022. Arising from our findings in the foregoing sections, it is our view that the Petitions partially succeed to the extent already stated in the judgment. We set out below a summary of our findings. On Whether the Legislative Process was Constitutional 1023. In addressing this issue we considered whether the impugned amendments were subjected to public participation in accordance with the Constitution, whether the enactment by way of an omnibus Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act was procedural or appropriate in the circumstances, and finally, whether the impugned law was a Bill concerning counties and should therefore have been subjected to approval of the Senate. 1024. All the parties were agreed that public participation is a key element in the achievement of democratic governance and is a constitutional imperative. Our view is that the time that was available for public participation must be considered in light of all the processes of the legislative process. In the present Petition, the evidence before us suggests that the public was aware of the Bill from 10th April 2018, when it was published, and could have participated from that date until the committee hearings on 14th, 19th and 20th June 2018. The evidence from the Respondent demonstrated that this opportunity was given to the public, and that indeed there was participation by the 3rd Petitioner even after expiry of the time stated in the advertisement. It was thus our finding that sufficient time was afforded for public participation on the enactment of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2018. 1025. We also took the view that whenever the issue of the use of an omnibus Bill arises, the question to be posed is whether the procedure has, in the circumstances of the particular case, limited the right of the public to participate in the legislature’s business. However, if there is evidence placed before the court by the legislature to demonstrate that the principle of public participation was complied with in the process of the amendments, then the court should not be quick to hold such amendments invalid simply because an omnibus Bill was used to make the amendments. 1026. We noted that it is not in the place of the courts to dictate the procedures to be used by the two houses of Parliament in executing their legislative mandate. The business of the court is to confirm that the legislative bodies have complied with the Constitution and the law in delivering on their mandates. In this respect, as we had already found that there was evidence of sufficient time for public participation, and the procedure employed by the 6th Respondent in the stakeholder engagement of the Omnibus Bill during the Committee Stage by various Committee did facilitate public participation, we did not find the use of the omnibus Bill in the enactment of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2018 unconstitutional. 1027. On whether the Bill was a Bill concerning counties, we were of the view that the jurisdiction of the Senate does not extend to each and every legislation passed by the National Assembly, and that to hold so would render Article 110 of the Constitution redundant. In addition, while the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution does indeed give a wide array of functions to the counties, in our view, these functions do not include creation and maintenance of a national population register. It was therefore our finding and holding that the enactment of the impugned amendments did not require the involvement of the Senate. Whether there is Violation and/or Threatened Violation of the Right to Privacy. (a) Whether the personal information collected is excessive, intrusive, and disproportionate. 1028. There were two limbs of arguments raised as regards this issue. The first limb was that the provisions for collection of biometric data by the impugned amendments was intrusive and unnecessary. Closely related to the first limb of the issue at hand is the second limb that the data collected pursuant to the impugned amendments is not supported by the stated purposes of NIIMS and is purpose free. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 170/174