Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR even with opposition parties themselves. 676. It is therefore apparent that the criticism of the omnibus Bill method is that it denies the public, including Parliamentarians, the opportunity to critically consider the proposed amendments and provide useful input. The limiting nature of the omnibus procedure has resulted in the courts discouraging the use of omnibus Bills to effect substantive amendments to legislation. Indeed in the 2016 Law Society Case the court did not state that the legislature should not use omnibus Bills to carry out substantive amendments of statutes. What the court said is that “omnibus amendments in the form of Statute Law Miscellaneous legislations ought to be confined only to minor non-controversial and generally house-keeping amendments.” The key word here being “ought”. 677. In the 2019 Law Society Case, the Court of Appeal seems to have taken issue with the fact that substantive amendments were effected through a Statute Law Miscellaneous Amendments Bill whose long title indicated that it was “An Act of Parliament to make minor amendments to Statute Law”. We are not persuaded that the Court of Appeal addressed the use of omnibus Bills in the legislative process and concluded that the procedure could not be used to make substantive amendments to Acts of Parliament. 678. From our analysis of the authorities above, we take the view that whenever the issue of the use of an omnibus Bill arises, the question to be posed is whether the procedure has, in the circumstances of the particular case, limited the right of the public to participate in the legislature’s business. In answering this question, the court will take into account the nature and extent of the amendments. An amendment that is controversial, involves the spending of public funds, is likely to infringe the rights of persons or creates new offences will draw more attention from the court. The court will be interested to establish whether the use of the omnibus procedure limited the right of public participation. 679. However, if there is evidence placed before the court by the legislature to demonstrate that the principle of public participation was complied with in the adoption of the amendments, then the court should not be quick to hold such an amendment invalid simply because an omnibus Bill was used to make the amendments. It is not the place of the courts to dictate the procedures to be used by the two houses of Parliament in executing their legislative mandate. The business of the court is to confirm that the legislative bodies have complied with the Constitution and the law in delivering on their mandates. 680. This then brings us to the question whether the use of an omnibus Bill in the enactment of the impugned amendments negatively impacted on the right of the public to participate, thus necessitating a declaration of invalidly by this court. In this respect we have already found that there was evidence of sufficient time for public participation, and that the procedure employed by the 6th Respondent in the stakeholder engagement of the Omnibus Bill during the Committee Stage by various Committee, did facilitate public participation. In the circumstances, we find that the use of an omnibus Bill to enact the impugned legislation was not unconstitutional. Whether the Bill was one concerning Counties and therefore required involvement of the Senate 681. The final issue relating to the procedural infirmities of the impugned amendments concern the question whether the amendments were on matters concerning counties and therefore required the involvement of the Senate. In answering this issue in the affirmative, the 1st Petitioner cites the case of The Speaker of the Senate and Another and the Attorney General and Others (2013) eKLR in which the Supreme Court held that if Parliament violates the procedural requirements of the supreme law of the land, it is for the courts of law to assert the authority and supremacy of the Constitution. 682. It is further the 1st Petitioner’s case that for a law to be considered constitutional, it must be so both in form and content. The case of Institute of Social Accountability & another v National Assembly & 4 others [2015] eKLR is cited for the proposition that legislation must conform to the Constitution in terms of its content and the http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 109/174