Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 27. 992. We have set out above the responses of the Respondents to these contentions, and we are constrained to agree with them that the Petitioners have not established a violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination. First, the law that established NIIMS, as submitted by the Respondents, does not establish or require that one undergoes a vetting process. As we understand the law to be, one has to present themselves with an identity document issued under a different piece of legislation in order to be registered under NIIMS. 993. In the case of foreign nationals, refugees and stateless persons, the legislation under which identity documents will continue to be issued are the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Refugee Act. Whatever the conditions for issuance of identity documents are under these Acts must be met before one is issued with an appropriate identity document, subsequent to which one may present the said document in order to register with NIIMS. In the case of Kenyan nationals, as we understand it, the issuance of identity documents will continue under the existing system of law: certificates of birth under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, and for national identity cards, the Registration of Persons Act. 994. It was deposed and submitted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, and not controverted by the Petitioners, that the requirement for vetting of persons from border communities was introduced to section 8(1A) of the Act by the Security Laws (Amendment) Act, No 19 of 2014. This section provides as follows: “1A) The Director may establish identification committees or appoint persons as identification agents to assist in the authentication of information furnished by a parent or guardian. 995. As submitted by the Respondents, this provision of the Act was not introduced by the impugned law, nor is it under challenge in the Consolidated Petitions before us. Indeed, it was not one of the provisions that was challenged in the consolidated petitions that impugned the process and substance of the Security Laws (Amendment) Act of 2014 that was the subject of determination in Coalition for Reform and Democracy (CORD) & 2 others v Republic of Kenya & 10 others (Supra). We do not, therefore, have before us legislation that contains a differentiation between members of the Nubian community and other marginalised groups as compared with other Kenyans. What we have is an amendment to an existing statute that introduces a system of registration into the population register that requires that one should be in possession of identification documents issued under other statutory provisions. It seems to us that should there be challenges with those other statutes or specific statutory provisions and the conditions for issuance of identity documents under the said statutes, then such challenges and conditions cannot properly be challenged in the present proceedings in which the statutory provisions in contention are entirely different. 996. Even had we found that there is legislation that contains differentiation between members of the Nubian and other communities and other groups in Kenya, there is yet another hurdle that the Petitioners would need to surmount. This is the question whether the Petitioners have laid a factual basis for the allegation that there is violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination of the Nubians and other marginalised communities. As held in the Anarita Karimi Njeru Case and Trusted Society for Human Rights Case (supra), the Petitioners have an obligation to show how the right to equality and non-discrimination has been violated by the State. This would require, as submitted by the 1st Respondent, that there should be evidence from members of the communities alleged to be discriminated against that demonstrates how the NIIMS process, or indeed the vetting process under section 8(1)(A) of the Registration of Persons Act is conducted in a manner that is violative of their rights. What is the evidence presented before us" 997. PW3, Ahmed Khalil Kafe, is a Kenyan citizen of Nubian descent born on 18th March 1946. He served as a police officer from 1965 to 1972. At around the time he retired from the Police Force in 1972, he lost his identification card, a driving licence and police card. He obtained a police abstract, but the abstract in time became http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 165/174