Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR an applicant on a case by case basis. They submit that the constitutionality of section 8 of the Act is not challenged in the present proceedings, and the procedure set out in the section enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. 956. The 4th and 7th Respondents further note that the 1st Petitioner’s witnesses, Mr. Hussein and Ms. Abdirahman, stated in their evidence that they are aware of two levels of vetting for the Nubian community, the first stage of which is by members of the Nubian community. It is their submission that no government official is involved in this stage of the vetting, and it is only the members of the Nubian community themselves who have the initial mandate to confirm the authenticity of the applicant’s claim to Kenyan citizenship. The second level of vetting, according to the 4th and 7th Respondents, is the one that involves committees comprising government officers. They note that while the 1st Petitioner has raised concerns about the representation of the Nubian community in this second level, Dr. Kibicho had clarified that the decisions of the committee are not based on majority voting. 957. It is their submission that, in any event, the concerns raised by the members of the 1st Petitioner are in respect to a process which is separate from NIIMS. They contend that the 1st Petitioner has not challenged the NIIMS process in these proceedings, nor does its witnesses, in their evidence, demonstrate the manner in which the vetting process is arbitrary, unreasonable or without a basis. 958. It is also the submission of the 4th and 7th Respondents that as testified by Dr. Kibicho, NIIMS is a continuous process. Accordingly, members of the Nubian community as well as any other person who is yet to acquire an identification card or a birth certificate will be able to register through NIIMS once they acquire these documents. 959. While observing that Shafi Hussein had, in his testimony, maintained that having had a three-step perspective of NIIMS registration, that is prior to, during and after the mass registration exercise, his concerns on the alleged discrimination remain, the 4th and 7th Respondents submit that his testimony could not be given credence given that he admitted that he had not registered for a Huduma Namba and could not therefore comment on the process. They further observe that he had admitted that he did not undergo vetting when applying for an identification card. 960. The 4th and 7th Respondents submit that the 1st Petitioner had failed to demonstrate how members of the Nubian community had been denied equal protection or benefit of the law. They note that Dr. Kibicho had testified that various initiatives have been put in place to facilitate the issuance of identity cards to Nubians, such as the Rapid Response Initiative (RRI), a fact which Shafi Hussein (PW 4) had acknowledged in his letter to the 4th Respondent dated 8th April 2017. 961. The 4th and 7th Respondents also agree with the rest of the Respondents that NIIMS will not result in discrimination against the 1st Petitioner’s members or any other group. They submit that the contention that the deployment of NIIMS was discriminatory to the Nubian community because they undergo vetting processes to obtain identification cards and birth certificates, which documents are required to register under NIIMS, are unfounded. It is their case that registration pursuant to NIIMS does not limit access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society. They further submit that like any other citizens living on the border, the Nubians are required to undergo the vetting process. They agree with the submissions of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents that the vetting process, which the Nubians and other border communities have to undergo, has a statutory underpinning in section 8 (1) of the Act. 962. It is their case that the purpose of the vetting process is to ensure that only those with a legitimate claim to Kenyan citizenship are registered by the 4th Respondent. They further argue that the said process seeks to address the influx into the country of such communities’ counterparts from neighboring countries. In their view, it is incumbent upon the 1st Petitioner to demonstrate the manner in which the vetting is discriminatory. 963. The 4th and 7th Respondents go into some details on the composition of the vetting committees. They note that they comprise an Assistant County Commissioner, a civil registration officer, an immigration officer where http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 158/174