Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 173. It was his averment that to the best of his knowledge and the publicly available information, neither the public nor the 2nd Petitioner was given a reasonable or meaningful opportunity to comment on or contribute to the impugned amendments at any stage of the legislative process prior to their passage by the National Assembly. He deposed that given the nature, scope and effect of the impugned amendments, there is a real threat that as drafted, they will have far reaching, unintended and undesirable consequences on the enjoyment of all fundamental rights and freedoms under the Bill of Rights. 174. He averred that in the circumstances, it was imperative that concerns of members of the public arising from the amendments should be taken into account before the impugned amendments are operationalised. He noted in particular that the impugned amendments significantly alter the process and substantive right of identification and registration of persons from birth to death, including the right to acquire vital documents like birth registration certificates, student registration for enrolment and issuance of examination certificates, national identity cards, refugee cards, work permits, passports, driving licenses and death certificates. In his view, permitting the amendments to stand without public participation or contribution shall render the provisions of the Constitution and the Parliamentary Standing Orders that require public participation academic. 175. Mr. Kegoro deposed that from his position as the 2nd Petitioner’s Executive Director in which he interacts with many members of the public from diverse backgrounds, he is aware that there exist grave concerns regarding the impugned amendments which would have been substantially addressed through the relevant committees of the National Assembly had the public been accorded the opportunity prescribed by law. 176. The 2nd Petitioner’s second concern relating to the process of enactment of the impugned Act relates to the propriety of the procedure adopted. Mr. Kegoro averred that it is a universally settled precept that substantive amendments with far reaching consequences such as the impugned amendments should be effected through a substantive Act and not through a miscellaneous amendment in an omnibus Act. It was his averment that this position has been expressed by the courts and even by members of the National Assembly during debates in the house on similar Bills, including in the debates recorded in the Hansard of 20th November 2018 on the impugned Act. He contended that given the substantive and controversial nature of the impugned amendments, it was inappropriate and contrary to public interest that the amendments were enacted into law through an omnibus Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act. 177. Mr. Kegoro averred that the concern with respect to the manner of amendment was brought to the attention of the National Assembly on 28th August 2018 through a point of order raised by Hon. Otiende Amollo but was ignored. He sets out in his affidavit the portions of the Hansard in which the Hon. Member’s concerns were captured. 178. He asserted that using an omnibus Bill for a substantive subject such as is covered by the impugned Act is tragic given that there have been ongoing legislative efforts since 2012 aimed at achieving the same objectives as the impugned amendments, but through substantive Acts of Parliament. He cited the National Registration Identification Bill 2012 and the Registration and Identification of Persons Bill, 2014 (Senate Bill No. 39) which concerned the same issue as the impugned amendments. It was his averment that all these efforts have been shortcircuited by an omnibus Miscellaneous Amendment Act. He observed that the two Bills contained safeguards relative to the impugned amendments in the impugned Act. He specifically pointed to the Kenya Citizens and Foreign National Management Service Act No. 12 of 2012 as containing similar functionalities as the impugned amendments but with better in-built safeguards. In his opinion, the impugned amendments were passed through an omnibus Bill in order to avoid strict scrutiny that they would otherwise undergo in stand-alone substantive Acts of Parliament. 179. The final ground of challenge to the Act set out in the affidavit of Mr. Kegoro is that the Act is ambiguous and lacks specificity, which he terms a violation of Article 94 of the Constitution as well as international law standards http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 27/174