Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR iii. Whether the amendments to the Registration of Persons Act through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 violate and/or threaten violation of the right to equality and freedom from discrimination contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution in respect of Nubians and other marginalised communities. 538. These Consolidated Petitions therefore raise procedural issues related to the process of enactment of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 2018 as well as substantive concerns related to the question whether the impugned law violates or threatens to violate constitutional rights. We shall begin our analysis by considering the procedural questions related to the enactment of the impugned amendments, then the question whether the impugned law violates or threatens to violate the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed under Article 31, and finally, whether the impugned amendments violate or threaten to violate the right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 27 in so far as the rights of the Nubian community and other vulnerable groups are concerned. 539. However, before we enter into an analysis of the issues, we deem it necessary to consider the question as to whether this Court has jurisdiction, and if so, the applicable constitutional and other principles that guide this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court’s Jurisdiction 540. The 6th Respondent has attempted to ward off the court’s inquiry into the issues raised by the Petitioners by flashing the separation of powers card and asserting the principle of parliamentary privilege. It has told the court that it should not touch the impugned amendments as that would amount to interference with the National Assembly’s constitutional mandate to legislate. Our response to these arguments is that there is a plethora of authorities which confirm that Parliament can only successfully raise the defence of separation of powers or parliamentary privilege by proving compliance with the Constitution and the law. Anything done by Parliament outside the confines of the Constitution and the law attracts the attention and action of this court. In conducting an inquiry into the constitutionality of the decisions and actions of the legislature the Court finds constitutional authority in Article 165(3)(d). 541. In its decision in the case of Council of Governors & 6 others vs Senate [2015] eKLR, the court expressed the ambit of this mandate as follows: “We are duly guided and this Court vested with the power to interpret the Constitution and to safeguard, protect and promote its provisions as provided for under Article 165(3) of the Constitution, has the duty and obligation to intervene in actions of other arms of Government and State Organs where it is alleged or demonstrated that the Constitution has either been violated or threatened with violation….To our mind, this Court has the power to enquire into the constitutionality of the actions of the Senate notwithstanding the privilege of inter alia, debate accorded to members of the Senate. That finding is fortified under the principle that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this country and the Senate must function within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. In cases where it has stepped beyond what the law and the Constitution permit it to do, it cannot seek refuge in illegality and hide under the doctrine of parliamentary privilege….In that regard, we have already found that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all state organs have an obligation to uphold it and the Senate must always act in accordance with the Constitution. Its procedures and resolutions must be made within the purview of the same constitution and it cannot purport to violate the Constitution and seek refuge in the doctrine of separation of powers. This Court, under Article 165(3) (d) (ii) of the Constitution is constitutionally mandated to examine whether anything done under the authority of the Constitution is well within the four corners of the Constitution. The Senate cannot therefore act in disregard of the Constitution and at the same time claim to exercise powers under the same Constitution. This Court will continue to exercise its jurisdiction and judicial authority as conferred by the people of Kenya to assert the authority and supremacy of the Constitution and when the Senate has violated the Constitution, it must be told so.” http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 81/174