Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR amendment does not therefore provide for mechanisms for inter-agency or inter-governmental cooperation necessary to support the function of verification and authentication. It was his deposition that this failure negates the principle of accountability as it vests the power of authentication of personal information on one system without checks and counter-checks. 167. With regard to the provisions of section 9A (2)(g) which provides for the collation of information obtained under the Act and its reproduction, as required, from time to time, Mr. Kegoro averred that the provision lacks in specificity. He contended that the authority to ‘collate’ and ‘reproduce’ essentially presupposes discretion to manipulate personal information to suit varying circumstances at the State’s convenience. He averred that the provision does not specify any limitations on the circumstances or the persons to whom personal information may be shared. In his view, this makes it possible to share, without notice, citizen’s personal information with third parties, including foreign States and private business enterprises that would otherwise not be entitled to access such information. 168. The 2nd Petitioner also impugns the provisions of section 9A(2)(h) of the Act. This section provides that NIIMS shall ensure the preservation, protection and security of any information or data collected, obtained, maintained or stored in the register. Its grievance with respect to this provision is that it does not contemplate or prescribe any consequences or penalty in law for unauthorized or accidental access, damage, loss or other risks presented by the proposed system. It was Mr. Kegoro’s averment that weighed against the nature and importance of the right to privacy, the provision is inadequate to guarantee the protection of personal information from unscrupulous and corrupt officers given the accountability loopholes identified in the system. The 2nd Petitioner’s position is that this risk is further compounded by the lack of clear minimum or immutable standards that the system must comply with in order to ensure the preservation and protection of personal information, instead leaving such standards to the whims of the State. 169. The 2nd Petitioner also challenges the provisions of section 9A(2)(i) of the impugned Act which provides for the correction of errors in the register by a person or by the system on its own initiative to ensure that the information is accurate, complete, up to date and not misleading. The basis for the challenge of this provision is that it has been poorly drafted. This is because it affords to ‘any person’ the right to apply for rectification of ‘any errors’ in the register. Mr. Kegoro averred that this right should be restricted to the owner of the said information. 170. With regard to the provision for the State to rectify errors ‘of its own motion’, Mr. Kegoro averred that as a secondary recipient of information, the State cannot, of its own initiative, determine what is or is not accurate, complete, up to date and not misleading information. It was his averment that the right of the State to amend any personal information should be exercised only with the consent and after consultation with the primary owner of the said information. 171. Mr. Kegoro averred further that the provision should also specify the applicable standards and principles for amendment of information. He gave as an illustration standards defining the scope and nature of personal information required under the Act in order to make it possible to anticipate with reasonable certainty whether an amendment is necessary. 172. The third reason advanced by the 2nd Petitioner for challenging the impugned Act relates to the process of its enactment. Mr. Kegoro averred that the impugned Act was enacted in a manner that denied the public the right to participate, a violation of Article 10(2)(a) of the Constitution. He stated that under Article 10(2) (a) and 118 (1) (b) of the Constitution as read together with Standing Order No. 127(3) of the National Assembly – 4th Edition, the National Assembly is enjoined in mandatory terms to facilitate public participation and involvement in the legislative and other business of Parliament and its committees. It is also enjoined to take into account the views and recommendations of the public made pursuant to such public participation. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 26/174