Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR of information and hacks through cybercrimes, as it is currently not clear which institution or person will be accountable for the registration process. 148. Fourthly, the 2nd Petitioner impugned the provisions on verification and authentication of information relating to identification of persons. It contended that NIIMS is only capable of verifying and authenticating documents issued by it, and the impugned amendments do not therefore provide for mechanisms for inter-agency or intergovernmental cooperation necessary to support the function of verification and authentication. Its view was that the power of authentication of personal information is left to one system, without checks and counter-checks, thereby negating the principle of accountability. 149. The fifth challenge to the impugned amendments related to the question of access to the data. The 2nd Petitioner contended that the provisions on collation of information does not specify any limitations on the circumstances and/or persons to whom personal information may be shared, making it possible to share citizens’ personal information with third parties, including foreign States. 150. In its sixth limb, the 2nd Petitioner contends that section 9A (2)(h) of the Act does not contemplate or prescribe any consequences or penalty in law for unauthorized or accidental access, damage, loss or other risks presented by the proposed system. It was its case further that it also fails to guarantee protection of personal information from unscrupulous and corrupt officers, nor does it set immutable standards that the system must comply with in order to protect personal data. 151. The 2nd Petitioner contends, lastly, that section 9A (2)(i) affords ‘any person’ the right to apply for rectification of ‘any errors’ in the register instead of restricting it to the owner of the information only. It contends that the State cannot, on its own initiative, determine what is or is not accurate, complete or up to date and not misleading information. The 2nd Petitioner contended that the State should accordingly specify the applicable standards and principles of amendment of information, for example by defining the scope and nature of personal information required under the Act. Its view was that this would make it possible to anticipate with reasonable certainty whether an amendment is necessary and what ‘complete’, ‘up to date’ and/or ‘not misleading’ information is. 152. The 2nd Petitioner therefore seeks the following orders: a) A declaration that the amendments to the Registration of Persons Act, Cap 107 Laws of Kenya, vide the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 are unconstitutional null and void. b) A declaration that the amendments to the Registration of Persons Act, Cap 107 Laws of Kenya, by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 were enacted unprocedurally and without public participation contrary to Articles 10(2)(a) and 118(1)(b) of the Constitution. c) A declaration that the amendments to the Registration of Persons Act, Cap 107 Laws of Kenya, by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and are unconstitutional null and void. d) A declaration that the amendments made to the Registration of Persons Act, Cap 107 Laws of Kenya, by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 are otherwise unreasonable and unjustifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, contrary to Article 24(1) of the Constitution. e) An order prohibiting the Respondents, by themselves, their employees, agents and or servants from installing and operationalizing the National Integrated Information Management System in any manner howsoever until http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 23/174