Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR that it will not repeat the same mistakes, it does not have the technological capability to honour the promise, as is evident from its claim that NIIMS is different from Aadhaar. Further, that while the harmonization of the various databases that contain personal data is a laudable goal, the Kenyan government has not done a detailed cost- benefit analysis of such an approach and other alternatives. Mr. Anand referred to and cited studies done in India on the Aadhaar project which indicated that the costs were high compared to the benefits it offered. His parting shot was that the NIIMS project would thus be a waste of public money, which money could have effectively been used elsewhere. 41. When cross-examined by Dr. Nyaundi for the 5th Respondent, Mr. Anand stated that he was self-taught on computer security. Further, that he has taught cyber security classes to the police. He, however, conceded that he had not attended any class to receive training on cyber security. His testimony was that he had written articles which he posted on the internet but had not been published in any peer-reviewed academic journals. However, that one of his articles was edited and discussed by people interested in the subject of cyber security. 42. Mr. Anand conceded that he had written the said articles prior to the implementation of NIIMS. He also accepted that he had not worked on NIIMS, reviewed any documents on it, or interacted with the system. He, however, stated that he studied the objectives of NIIMS, the architecture of the system, and the need for a single identifying number based on biometrics. It was his evidence that he could not tell whether Kenya had used the OT Morpho algorithms, but had reached the conclusion that it had because the OT Morpho algorithms are the ones normally used for biometric deduplication. He also confirmed that he did not know the software Kenya used in NIIMS. 43. Mr. Anand agreed that one of the problems with the Aadhaar system was that the data was inaccurate because the data collectors were paid by the number of persons enrolled, hence leading to the temptation to exaggerate the numbers. He nevertheless maintained that the Kenyan system was similar to the Aadhaar system. He conceded that he was not part of the team that designed the Aadhaar system but asserted that he had investigated its design and architecture from available public material. 44. Mr. Anand explained that a centralised system means that all the data is kept in a single database. His evidence was that most countries divide the data into smaller functional databases and only retain the personal core data in a central database. Further, that the functional databases are referred to as federated databases, and are not decentralized databases, as they do not have any link to the central database. It was his position that NIIMS is both centralised and federated, which is what informed his criticism of the system, as the federated databases still have back references to the central database. His view was that the NIIMS system is a single central national data base having all records of the individual. 45. According to Mr. Anand, biometric identification is in itself not bad technology, as it can improve security, and a single identity system is a global trend. Further, that electronic data was under constant threat globally. Additionally, electronic storage is gaining global currency as that was where the world was going, and he was not advising any country to go back to the age of paper. 46. His evidence was that every electronic storage system must have protection, but that the protections provided by governments are usually not sufficient. According to Mr. Anand, electronic data is usually protected by layers of access. That some people have full access, some less access and others minimal access. He was not aware of the Kenyan laws on protection of data, and without public information, he could not specifically say what the weaknesses of NIIMS were. He nonetheless asserted that his complaint about NIIMS was not about digitisation but its architecture, which has no limitations on the purposes of the system, and which allows breaches, frauds and exclusion. 47. In response to questions from Mr. Njoroge Regeru for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, Mr. Anand told the court http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 9/174