Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR information, is a different entity from Parliament. Therefore, placing the onus on Parliament alone in this respect may be impracticable and unreasonable. In addition, there are opportunities to engage citizens at various stages of the legislative process, and these can be coordinated by various actors who are responsible for the process at any given stage, including during the content development of a Bill. Accordingly, there are roles to be played by the Executive, civil society and Parliament in education the public as actors in the various stages of the development of a Bill. 631. Be that as it may, we note that the 6th Respondent annexed a copy of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments Bill) 2018 together with a Memorandum of Objects and Reasons to its Replying Affidavit sworn on 28th February 2019 by Michael Sialai. The said Memorandum of Objects and Reasons explained that the Bill proposed to amend the Registration of Persons Act to establish the National Integrated Identity Management System, and provide for the capture of biometric data and geographical data in the registration of persons in Kenya. The said Bill was published in the Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 35 (National Assembly Bills No 12) on 10th April 2018. In terms of the legislative process, the Bill and Memorandum of Reasons and Objects was therefore in the public domain from 10th April 2018. 632. The 6th Respondent also annexed a copy of the advertisement in the Daily Nation newspaper of 7th May 2018. The said advertisement informed the public about three events. Firstly, on the publication of the Bill on 10th April 2018. Secondly, that the amendments in the Bill to the various Acts would be committed to various Departmental Committees of the National Assembly that were listed in the advertisement. Lastly, of an invitation to members of the public to submit any representations they may have on the Bill. In this respect, the amendments to the Registration of Persons Act were shown to be committed to the Administration and National Security Committee of the National Assembly. The minutes of the sittings of the said Committee on 14th, 19th, and 20th June 2019 when the amendments were discussed were also annexed, as was a copy of a memorandum sent by the 3rd Petitioner dated 25th May 2018 on the said amendments. 633. The Petitioners on the other hand rely on the advertisement published on 7th May 2018 to show that there was insufficient time for public participation, and the contents of the Bill, which was amending 68 Acts of Parliament. 634. Our view is that the time that was available for public participation must be considered in light of all the processes of the legislative process. In the present Petition, the evidence before us suggests that the public was aware of the Bill from 10th April 2018, when it was published, and could have participated from that date. The purpose of publication of Bill in this regard is to notify the public and invite representations through the elected Members or direct submission of memoranda and petitions. It is therefore not entirely correct to state that the members only had the seven days indicated in the advertisement of 7th May 2018 to present their views on the Bill. Even after expiry of the seven days, the doors were not closed for members of the public to participate, as there was still opportunity to participate during the committee hearings as shown in Standing Order 127. The evidence from the Respondent demonstrates that this opportunity was availed, and that indeed there was participation by the 3rd Petitioner even after expiry of the time stated in the advertisement. It is thus our finding that sufficient time was availed for public participation on the enactment Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments Bill) 2018. 635. There is sufficient authority for the proposition that the entire process has to be interrogated in order to determine whether the requirement for public participation was fulfilled in respect of a given law. In 2013 Law Society Case the Court held 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; from the formulation of the legislation to the process of enactment of the statute.” 636. We also recognize that there were efforts made by the National Assembly in facilitating public participation http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 100/174