Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 737. It was also their submission that the Petitioners failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate the manner in which the collection of personal information is an “unnecessary requirement” as set out in Article 31 (c) of the Constitution, especially in light of the fact that the information is already held by the State, albeit in different institutions. They further claimed that the Petitioners do not challenge any other statutory provisions which allow the government to collect personal information on account of an alleged infringement to the right to privacy. 738. The 5th Respondent submits that the amendment complained of does not limit or violate the right to privacy as alleged, and only captures necessary biometric information in line with globally acceptable requirements in securing the State against terrorism, money laundering and to aid national planning. Further, that the right to privacy is only violated when unauthorized persons gain access to the data under protection. In this instance, that government officers legitimately gain access for a lawful purpose. 739. The 8th and 9th Interested Parties’ submissions were on the role of digital identification in sustainable development. The said Interested Parties note that following the adoption and ratification of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, various multilateral and international organizations, including the World Bank, UNDP and UNICEF, to which Kenya is a member, have all stressed the critical role played by digital identity databases in realizing the said Goals which are in many ways similar and/or identical to the national values and principles of governance under Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya. 740. The 8th and 9th Interested Parties make reference to various publications that have found that lack of personal official identification prevents people from fully exercising their rights and isolates them socially, economically and politically. Further, that beyond quantifiable economic benefits, digital ID can offer non-economic value to individuals through social and political inclusion, rights protection and transparency. Therefore, that the right digital identification technology designed with the right principles and enforced with the right policies, can be used in the provision of e-government services and benefits, expanding access and saving time for citizens while reducing costs for governments and improving social welfare. 741. In addressing these two related limbs, this Court is mindful of the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution on the right to privacy, which provide as follows: “Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have— (a) their person, home or property searched; (b) their possessions seized; (c) information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” 742. The Article therefore guarantees a general right to privacy, and in addition also guards against specific infringements of privacy, including unnecessary revelation of information relating to family or private affairs, which is the bone of contention in the consolidated petitions herein. The South African Constitutional Court discussed the elements and scope of the general right to privacy in Bernstein vs Bester NO (1996) 2 SA 751 (CC), wherein Ackermann J. held as follows in the majority judgment in paragraph 67: “(67)…..The truism that no right is to be considered absolute, implies that from the outset of interpretation each right is always already limited by every other right accruing to another citizen. In the context of privacy this would mean that it is only the inner sanctum of a person, such as his/her family life, sexual preference and home environment, which is shielded from erosion by conflicting rights of the community. This implies that http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 120/174