Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR also noted that where there is a conflict between experts on a fundamental point, it is the Court’s task to justify its preference for one over the other by an analysis of the underlying material and of their reasoning, and that a Court may find that an expert’s opinion is based on illogical or even irrational reasoning and reject it, and may give little weight to an expert’s testimony where it finds the expert’s reasoning speculative or manifestly illogical and as a result unreliable. The various expert testimony presented before us shall therefore be analysed on the basis of the above principles. 564. We now turn to consider the substantive issues raised in the Petition. Whether the Legislative Process was Constitutional 565. The first issue to consider relates to the question whether the legislative process leading up to the enactment of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 was constitutional. In addressing this question, we consider whether the impugned amendments were subjected to public participation in accordance with the Constitution, whether the enactment by way of an omnibus Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act was procedural or appropriate in the circumstances, and finally, whether the impugned law was a Bill concerning counties and should therefore have been subjected to approval of the Senate. Whether there was Public Participation. 566. The Petitioners contend that the enactment of the impugned amendments did not comply with the constitutional requirement for public participation. The 1st Petitioner submits that apart from a call to the public to give views on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018, no information was made available to the public as to what NIIMS was, what it would entail, its potential vulnerabilities, and how it would affect the lives of Kenyans and foreign nationals resident in Kenya. It submits that the right to public participation is intertwined with the right to information since, for adequate participation to take place, those participating must have the salient information necessary to intelligibly form and articulate their opinion on what is proposed. The 1st Petitioner cites the decision in the case of Katiba Institute vs President’s Delivery Unit & 3 others [2017] eKLR as stating that successful and effective public participation in governance largely depends on the citizen’s ability to access information held by public authorities, and the right to access information becomes a foundational human right upon which other rights must flow. 567. The 1st Petitioner takes the view that in enacting the impugned amendments, the National Assembly was bound by the national values and principles of public participation, transparency and accountability. Article 118 of the Constitution is cited as requiring Parliament to conduct its business in an open manner, including opening its sittings and those of its committees to the public. To buttress this argument, it relies on the case of Law Society of Kenya vs Attorney General & 2 Others [2013] e KLR (hereafter the 2013 Law Society Case) in support of the statement that in order to determine whether there has been public participation, the court is required to interrogate the entire process leading to the enactment of the legislation. According to the 1st Petitioner, the court in Law Society of Kenya vs Attorney General & Another [2016] eKLR (hereafter the 2016 Law Society Case) also held that any amendments introduced on the floor of the House subsequent to public participation ought not to be completely new provisions which were neither incorporated in the Bill as published, nor the outcome of the public input. 568. The 1st Petitioner further relies on the case of Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General & Another [2018] eKLR in which the South African case ofMatatiele Municipality & Others vsThe President of South Africa & Others(2) (CCT 73/05 A [2006] ZACC12; 2007 (1) BCLR 47 (CC) is cited for the proposition that the Constitution contemplates that the people will have a voice in the legislative organs of the State, not only through elected representatives but also through participation in the law-making process. The 1st Petitioner also cites the case of Robert N. Gakuru & others v Kiambu County Government & 3 others[2014] eKLR (the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 87/174