Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR manner in which it was adopted. Failure to comply with the requirements in enacting legislation renders the legislation invalid. 683. The 1st Petitioner further cites the Supreme Court as stating in The Speaker of the Senate and Another and the Attorney General and Others, (supra) that the Senate ought to participate in the passing of a Bill as long as it can be shown that such a Bill has provisions affecting the functional areas of county governments. In support of the argument that the impugned amendments affected the operational areas of county governments, the testimony of Dr. Karanja Kibicho is cited as disclosing that NIIMS is intended to benefit county governments, and in particular on matters to do with food security, healthcare, housing and education. 684. Further, that the Huduma Namba will be needed to access services, including those offered by county governments. It is the 1st Petitioner’s case that this is a clear indication that the impugned amendments related to matters concerning county governments, therefore necessitating the involvement of the Senate in the passage of the law. Reliance is again placed on the decision in the Institute of Social Accountability Case for the proposition that failure to include the Senate in passage of a law touching on matters concerning county governments renders the law constitutionally infirm and invalid. 685. The 2nd Petitioner did not submit on the role of the Senate in the enactment of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2018. 686. The 3rd Petitioner was, like the 1st Petitioner, of the view that the impugned amendments are unconstitutional as they were not referred to the Senate as required by Article 110 (2) (b) and (3), neither were they subjected to the mandatory provisions of Article 110(3) of the Constitution as the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Senate did not jointly resolve the question on whether the Statute law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2018 was a Bill concerning counties. According to the 3rd Petitioner, the conduct of the National Assembly undermined the legal structure and framework of the legislature and the established procedure for enacting legislation. The decision of the Supreme Court in The Speaker of the Senate and Another and the Attorney General and Others, (supra) is cited as having conclusively dealt with the question of the roles of the National Assembly and the Senate with regard to the organization, introduction and consideration, and enactment of Bills. It is the 3rd Petitioner’s case that the Supreme Court held that the Senate, though entrusted with a less expansive legislative role than the National Assembly, stands as the Constitution’s safeguard for the principle of devolved government. 687. It is further the 3rd Petitioner’s contention that Article 93establishes Parliament comprising the National Assembly and the Senate with each House enjoined to perform its respective functions in accordance with the Constitution. It contends that where the Constitution prescribes a procedure that ought to be followed in enacting a law, that procedure must be followed. The decision in the Doctors For Life Case is relied upon in support of the principle that legislation must conform to the Constitution both in terms of its content and the manner in which it is adopted, and failure to comply with the requirements in enacting legislation renders the legislation invalid. 688. The 5th Interested Party supports the position taken by the Petitioners that the Statute law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill 2018 was a Bill concerning counties and the involvement of the Senate in the legislative process was required. It relies on Article 110(3) of the Constitution and cites the decision in The Speaker of the Senate and Another and the Attorney General and Others, (supra) as holding that the Speaker of the Senate should be consulted in classification of Bills. It is its submission that in this case, there is no evidence that the Speaker of the Senate was consulted and determined that the Bill was not one concerning county governments. 689. The 5th Interested Party also relies on the case of Re the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission, Supreme Court Const. Appl. No. 2 of 2011 in which the Supreme Court advised that the expression ‘any matters touching on county government’ should be so interpreted as to incorporate any national level process bearing a significant impact on the conduct of county governments. It is its position that a Bill http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 110/174