Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Assembly incorporates the constitutional principle of public participation in its legislative business by providing that: “127. (1) A Bill having been read a First Time shall stand committed to the relevant Departmental Committee without question put. (2) …. (3) The Departmental Committee to which a Bill is committed shall facilitate public participation on the Bill through appropriate mechanism, including(a) inviting submission of memoranda; (b) holding public hearings; (c) consulting relevant stakeholders in a sector; and (d) consulting experts on technical subjects. (3A) The Departmental Committee shall take into account the views and recommendations of the public under paragraph (3) in its report to the House.” 627. We find that the said provision does indeed incorporate the principles of public participation. A close reading of the provision readily discloses that Parliament has the discretion on the method to be used in collecting views from the public, stakeholders and experts. This observation is in line with the case law on public participation. 628. In the Doctors for Life case Ngcobo, J was of the opinion that: “Whether a legislature has acted reasonably in discharging its duty to facilitate public involvement will depend on a number of factors. The nature and importance of the legislation and the intensity of its impact on the public are especially relevant. Reasonableness also requires that appropriate account be paid to practicalities such as time and expense, which relate to the efficiency of the law-making process. Yet the saving of money and time in itself does not justify inadequate opportunities for public involvement. In addition, in evaluating the reasonableness of Parliament’s conduct, this Court will have regard to what Parliament itself considered to be appropriate public involvement in the light of the legislation’s content, importance and urgency. Indeed, this Court will pay particular attention to what Parliament considers to be appropriate public involvement. What is ultimately important is that the legislature has taken steps to afford the public a reasonable opportunity to participate effectively in the law-making process.” 629. The Petitioners and the Interested Parties who support them have decried the lack of information in regard to the impugned amendments and NIIMS itself. They also raise the issue of the sufficiency of time given to the public to submit their views. The request for representations from the public was published in the newspapers on 7th May, 2018, and the representations were to be submitted before the close of business on 14th May, 2018. The Respondents and the Interested Parties aligned to their cause insist that the pre-enactment information on the impugned amendments and the post-enactment education on NIIMS was sufficient in the circumstances of this case. 630. We note that neither of the parties addressed us on which party bears the responsibility of informing the public on the Bills for purposes of public participation in the legislative process. This is in light of the fact that the legislative process begins from policy formulation stage, and the sponsor of a legislation, who has the background http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 99/174