Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR of Kenya &10 others [2015] eKLR was cited as upholding the limitations imposed on the right to privacy by the National Intelligence Service Act as reasonable and justifiable on account of the circumstances facing the nation. 534. It is the 9th Interested Party’s case that the use of integrated databases, including DNA databases, is now one of the most effective tools in fighting crime, especially crimes involving violence, terrorism and sexual offences. He gave the United States of America and South Africa as examples of countries with DNA databases. Mr. Kingori, however, conceded that those databases are reserved for those who come into contact with the law and not the general population. 535. The 9th Interested Party contended that the Consolidated Petitions are predicated on the theory that governments should be treated with suspicion or are not to be trusted with data or are incapable of responsibly dealing with data. He noted that, conversely, millions of Kenyans have entrusted their most private data with private social media entities including Facebook, Twitter, Tinder and Google who retain such data in cloud repository servers, and Mr. Kingori wondered why the Petitioners have not lifted a finger against such foreign entities. 536. It was his deposition that as at 24th April, 2019, more than 15.6 million people had voluntarily registered with the NIIMS system across the country. That the process had also received broad bipartisan support across the political divide, which confirmed that the people of Kenya had given a vote of confidence to NIIMS. He therefore urged the court todismiss the Consolidated Petitions. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 537. We have considered the pleadings of the parties as well as their detailed respective submissions and authorities, and have identified three substantive issues for determination: i. Whether the legislative process leading up to the enactment of Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 was constitutional. In this regard, three sub-issues arise: b. Whether enactment of the impugned amendments vide a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was procedural and/or appropriate in the circumstances; c. Whether the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018 was a Bill concerning counties and should therefore have been subjected to approval of the Senate. ii. 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 privacy contrary to Article 31 of the Constitution. In this regard, four sub-issues arise: a. Whether the personal information collected pursuant to the amendments to the Registration of Persons Act is intrusive, excessive and disproportionate to the stated objectives of NIIMS; b. Whether the rights of children to privacy are violated or threatened with violation by the impugned amendments; c. Whether there are sufficient legal safeguards and data protection frameworks for the personal information that is collected in NIIMS; d. Whether the impugned amendments to the Registration of Persons Act are an unreasonable and unjustifiable limitation to the right to privacy. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 80/174