Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR biometric passport as an example. He further averred that designing systems without a centralised database also reduces the risk of a major breach of biometric data. 132. Dr. Fisher expressed the opinion that a unique, single, persistent identifier or ‘identity number’ for citizens is not necessary for an identity system. He gave illustrations from the UK’s Verify.gov system which does not require a single, unique identity number for individuals to authenticate their identities; Germany where the law prohibits the use of a unique identification number of general application; and India where, since the launch of Aadhaar in 2009, the system has undergone design changes that include the introduction of virtual identity and tokenisation as alternatives to the use of Aadhaar numbers to access services. 133. Dr. Fisher also cited the situation in Singapore in which a single identifier is used and can potentially unlock large amounts of information relating to the individual. This poses the risks of identity fraud and theft, and as a result, the data protection authority in Singapore prohibits the collection, use, or disclosure of the single identity numbers by non-public sector organisations, except when required by law or when it is necessary to identify individuals to a high level of fidelity. 134. Finally, Dr. Fisher observed that the Estonian system involves a platform known as X-Road that allows institutions to exchange data. However, the system also allows citizens to monitor how their data has been used by government departments since a log record is created whenever an individual’s data is accessed. The 2nd Petitioner’s Case 135. The 2nd Petitioner, Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), is a non-governmental human rights organization registered in Kenya on 20th January 1994. Its mandate is to inter alia secure human rights in states and societies through fostering human rights, democratic values, human dignity and social justice. The 2nd Petitioner filed a petition dated 18th February 2019, supported by an affidavit and a further affidavit of George Kegoro, its Executive Director, sworn on 18th February 2019 and 12th April 2019 respectively. 136. The 2nd Petitioner also relied on affidavits sworn on 12th April 2019 by its Deputy Executive Director, Davis Malombe, and by Alice Munyua, a Policy Adviser of the Mozilla Corporation. It also filed a witness affidavit dated 12th April 2019 by Grace Mutung’u, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, who was called to testify as an expert witness. 137. The 2nd Petitioner impugns the Act on four main grounds. The first is that there was a denial of the right to public participation in the process of enactment of the impugned amendments. The 2nd Petitioner avers that neither it nor the public were given a reasonable opportunity to comment on or contribute to the substantive provisions of the amendments at any stage prior to their passage by the National Assembly. Further, that any engagements with the public concerning the impugned amendments, if at all, were a wholly cosmetic public relation exercise designed to create the false impression of constitutional compliance. 138. It was further averred that the impugned amendments significantly alter the process of acquiring vital identity documents, which will impact every sphere of the day to day lives of Kenyans, and by extension, have far reaching consequences on the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. It contended therefore, that it would have been fair, just and in the public interest that the amendments be subjected to public participation, which did not happen in this case. 139. The 2nd Petitioner was aggrieved, secondly, by the enactment of the impugned amendments through an omnibus statute. It averred that it is a universally settled precept that substantive amendments with far-reaching consequences such as the instant ones should be effected through a substantive Act and not through a miscellaneous amendment in an omnibus Act. Consequently, that it was inappropriate and contrary to public http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 21/174