Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR made to the law and given an opportunity to participate publicly in the making of public policies and laws. In addition to the cases already cited by the Petitioners, the 6th Interested Party relied on the case of Samuel Thinguri Waruathe and 2 Others v Kiambu County Government & 2 Others (2015) eKLR in support of the principle that public views ought to be considered in the decision-making process and as far as possible, the product of the legislative process ought to be a true reflection of the public participation. It is its submission further, that by using an omnibus Bill to introduce significant changes to the law, the intention was not to enhance and facilitate public awareness and participation but to dilute and circumvent that requirement. 587. It asserts that the Court of Appeal had, in the case of Law Society of Kenya v The Hon. Attorney General & 2 others, [2019] eKLR, (hereafter the 2019 Law Society of Kenya Case) put a seal of approval on the stated law on public participation and the place of omnibus Bills in the passing of laws. 588. The Respondents strenuously oppose the assertion by the Petitioners and the 5th and 6th Interested Parties. They insist that the impugned amendments were passed in compliance with the Constitution. The 1st Respondent submits that there was effective public participation and that the provisions of Article 118 of the Constitution were complied with through publication of the Bill in the local newspapers. Further, that there is no averment that the Petitioners or any other person was denied the opportunity to oversee the process leading to the enactment of the legislation in issue. It is also the 1st Respondent’s case that the Petitioners can still invoke the provisions of Article 119 of the Constitution which allows members of the public to petition Parliament to amend, enact or repeal any legislation, thereby providing another opportunity for public participation. 589. The 1st Respondent submits that public participation was facilitated through the National Assembly’s Standing Orders. He relies on the 2013 Law Society of Kenya Case as affirming the position that the Parliamentary Standing Orders by themselves facilitate public participation in legislative business. The 1st Respondent asserts that the legislature is not bound to enact legislation in accordance with the views of any particular interest group. Further, that public participation should not be used to overrule or veto the acts of the legislature as proposed by the Petitioners. The 1st Respondent relies on the decision in Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum & 6 others vs Republic of Kenya & 2 others (supra) in support of the proposition that the National Assembly has a broad measure of discretion on how it achieves the object of public participation and what matters is that at the end of the day, a reasonable opportunity is offered to members of the public to know about the issues and to have an adequate say. 590. The 1st Respondent further submits, again on the authority of Kenya Small Scale Farmers Forum & 6 others vs Republic of Kenya & 2 others, that what amounts to a reasonable opportunity for the public to participate in the enactment of legislation will depend on the circumstances of each case. It is the 1st Respondent’s case that the doctrine of public participation was complied with in this case in that on 7th May 2018, advertisements were placed in both the Standard and Daily Nation newspapers asking for memoranda from stakeholders in respect of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018. Further, that the National Assembly Committee on Administration and National Security held stakeholders meetings on 14th, 19th, and 20th June 2018 where the stakeholders, who included the 3rd Petitioner were given an opportunity by the 6th Respondent to present their views on the impugned amendments. 591. In the 1st Respondent’s view, not every person must express their views in order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of public participation, citing in support of this argument the 2016 Law Society of Kenya Case. According to the 1st Respondent, the 3rd Petitioner has not denied the fact that it participated in the process leading to the passing of the impugned amendments, and that of itself is positive proof that public participation was real and not illusory. 592. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents concur with the Petitioners that jurisprudence on the question of public participation in the legislative process requires that the members of the public are given reasonable opportunity to http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 91/174