Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR further aggrieved that public services connected to these identification documents will only be offered to those who surrender their personal biometric information and are issued with the Huduma Namba. This contention requires that we address ourselves to the question whether obtaining the Huduma Namba is mandatory, a condition precedent to obtaining government services, and therefore likely to result in exclusion and violation of the right to non-discrimination. 1005. The parties to this matter have not addressed themselves to this issue in their submissions. However, it emerges as a core grievance of the Petitioners in the affidavit evidence of Ms. Munyua and Mr. Kegoro, and the oral testimony of Mr. Hussein. Ms. Munyua averred that the NIIMS process should not be used for exclusion. While noting that possessing an identity is increasingly a precondition to accessing basic services, and since vital government services will require a Huduma Namba, she averred that there was the potential for excluding from the system those who may not have registered for various reasons. 1006. The position taken by the Petitioners is that care should be taken not to exclude anyone from the identification system because of their physical, social, demographic, or economic characteristics. Ms. Munyua noted in particular the potential to exclude marginalized communities since officials will be using existing documents to verify who is a citizen, thus locking out people who do not have these identification documents such as the Makonde, the Shona and pastoral communities. 1007. George Kegoro makes similar averments with regard to the potential for NIIMS to result in exclusion and consequent denial of government services if such services are pegged on registration in NIIMS and possession of the Huduma Namba, a result that would be inconsistent with Article 12(2) which relates to citizenship rights, and Article 24 of the Constitution. 1008. The Respondents counter that registration under NIIMS is meant to be an ongoing exercise. Dr. Kibicho averred that it will not be discontinued at the lapse of 45 days of mass registration. Their contention is that there is no danger of exclusion as deserving persons who do not currently have the requisite identification documents can obtain them within the parameters set by the law and thereafter register for the Huduma Namba. 1009. On his part, Jerome Ochieng sees advantages in the NIIMS system over the current registration system. He avers that the current registration system has some shortcomings, including access to documents or access to the registration system. He illustrates this by noting that under the current system, applicants for national identity cards are required to produce their birth certificates and their parents’ national identity cards, among others. In the Respondents’ view, with registration in NIIMS, all this information shall be captured and there will thus be no need for such documentation. The argument from the Respondents thus posits that NIIMS will reduce the duplication of processes common in accessing government services as it will serve as a one-stop shop for identification information, thus rendering access to government more efficient. 1010. We have two scenarios presented to us by the parties with respect to the consequences of the implementation of NIIMS. The first is the gloomy scenario that the Petitioners fear will lead to the exclusion of significant portions of the population from accessing government services on account of a failure to register under NIIMS. Such a failure may result from a choice, an election, not to surrender vital personal data to the system, or from the inability to register due to the lack of personal identification documents as may happen, according to the Petitioners, with respect to marginalised communities. 1011. Then there is the optimistic scenario painted by the Respondents in which access to government services will be easy and efficient as all the personal data will be available within the NIIMS system and accessible at the click of a mouse. A consideration of the issue of exclusion requires that we try to find a balance and arrive at an approximation of where the truth between these two divergent scenarios lies, and to arrive at a determination that will advance the rights of citizens and all others resident within the borders of Kenya who require government http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 167/174