Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR the NIIMS process is primarily anchored on the said legislation. 311. As regards the allegation by the 1st Petitioner that the Nubians have faced discrimination in the registration process, his response was that the allegation lacked a factual and legal basis. In his view, to have the State accord the Nubians preferential treatment over and above other Kenyan citizens is contrary to the provisions of Article 27 of the Constitution. 312. The 1st Respondent further took the position that NIIMS seeks to capture and store data in a centralized digital database for effective and efficient administration which will facilitate accountability in various forms and curb wastage of resources in line with Article 201 of the Constitution. It would also ease registration and identification of persons thereby improving the security of the country by authenticating and verifying persons. Moreover, by attempting to direct the manner in which the impugned legislation ought to have been enacted, the Petitioners were asking the court to question the legislative wisdom of the National Assembly contrary to Chapter Eight of the Constitution yet they had failed to demonstrate that the parliamentary procedure was flouted in the process leading to the enactment of the impugned amendments. It was the 1st Respondent’s contention therefore that the Petitioners had failed to discharge the evidentiary burden required of them to prove non-compliance with Article 118(1)(b) of the Constitution as read with National Assembly Standing Order No. 123 as regards public participation in the process leading to the enactment of the impugned laws. 313. According to the 1st Respondent, public participation can in any event be effected directly by the people or indirectly through their democratically elected representatives in the National Assembly which courts have taken judicial notice of. Furthermore, the Petitioners had failed to explore the option provided under Article 119(1) of the Constitution as read with the provisions of the Petition to Parliament (Procedure) Act No. 22 of 2012 before seeking redress from this Court. It was his contention further that the Petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality that is enjoyed by the impugned amendments. 314. The 1st Respondent conceded that data protection is crucial. He argued that contrary to the Petitioners’ claim that there are no data protection laws, data in Kenya had been secured under various statutes including section 83 of the Kenya Information and Communication Act and section 20 of the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act. 315. It was also his contention that the right to privacy is not an absolute right. Further, that the Petitioners have not demonstrated how the limitation to the right to privacy fails to meet the dictates of Article 24 of the Constitution, if at all, and they had also failed to outline the vagueness in the impugned law or the opaqueness in the manner in which it is being implemented. 316. To the contention that the impugned amendments were unconstitutional for not receiving Senate approval, the Attorney General asserted that under the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, national security, immigration and citizenship, national statistics and data on population are functions of the national government. Consequently, there was no requirement to involve the Senate during the enactment of the impugned law. 317. Regarding the use of an omnibus Bill to enact the amendments, the 1st Respondent stated that the impugned amendments are not substantive and therefore their enactment through a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act was justified. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ Case 318. The 2nd Respondent is the Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government, while the 3rd Respondent is the Principal Secretary in the said Ministry. The two Respondents are public offices established by the Constitution as part of the Executive branch of Government and are responsible for inter-alia the registration of persons services under the Registration of Persons Act. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 46/174