Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR and enhance the democratic nature of general elections and majority rule, not to conflict with or even overrule or veto them. To say that the views expressed during a process of public participation are not binding when they conflict with Government’s mandate from the national electorate, is not the same as cynically stating that the legislature is not required to keep an open mind when engaging in a process of that kind. Public involvement cannot be meaningful in the absence of a willingness to consider all views expressed by the public.” 622. As emerges from the submissions above, all the parties agree that public participation is a key element in the achievement of democratic governance and is a constitutional imperative. All the parties also agree that the 3rd Respondent invited memoranda from the public through adverts in the Standard and Daily Nation newspapers of 7th May, 2018. According to the Respondents and the Interested Parties opposing the Petition, the advertisement fulfilled the constitutional requirement for public participation. The Petitioners and the Interested Parties who support the Petition think otherwise. The issue for determination therefore revolves around the sufficiency or otherwise of the public participation conducted in respect of the impugned amendments. 623. In Mui Coal Basin Local Community & 15 Others (supra) the Court expressed itself on the question of threshold of public participation as follows: “92. The main question in this context then becomes, what is the test for determining if the threshold of public participation has been met" We are aware that several Courts in Kenya have dealt with the issue. The emerging position in Kenya is exemplified by the decision and reasoning of Justice Emukule in John Muraya Mwangi& 495 Others & 6 Others V Minister For State For Provincial Administration & Internal Security & 4 Others [2014 eKLR. Since it demonstrates the emerging consensus, we apologise for quoting at length the reasoning of the Learned Judge thus: “The concept of public participation enshrined in Articles 10 and 12 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, is a difficult one but needs to be given effect both before and after legislative enactment. This may take several forms:i. The concept envisages political participation in the conduct of public affairs, such as the right to vote, and to be elected or appointed to public office, ii. The right to be engaged in public debate and dialogue with elected representatives at public hearings, iii. The duty to facilitate public participation in the conduct of public affairs, i. Ensuring that ordinary citizens the “hoi polloi,” the “lala hoi” have the necessary information and are given opportunity to exercise their say not merely in election and appointment to political office but also economic participation, and conduct of their affairs.” 624. As to how to determine whether the public participation conducted was sufficient, the Court stated that: “96. The issue then arises of how we measure what is sufficient. In our determination we agree with the test applied in the Merafong Demarcation case and state that, the method and degree of public participation that is reasonable in a given case depends on a number of factors, including the nature and importance of the issue at hand and the intensity of its impact on the public.” 625. Even though the cited principles are couched in the context of the day to day governance of the populace, we find them applicable to some extent to execution of legislative business by Parliament. 626. Through Standing Order No. 127 of the National Assembly Standing Orders (4th Edition), the National http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 98/174