Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 303. The last Interested Party who supported the Petition was the 6th Interested Party, Inform Action Limited, which is a human rights organization that empowers communities. It filed a statement dated 8th April, 2019. 304. The Interested Parties’ averments are substantially to the same effect as the averments made by the Petitioners on both the procedural and substantive infirmities of the impugned amendments, as well as the shortcomings of NIIMS. 305. The particular areas underscored by the Interested Parties were the lack of information and public participation in NIIMS; its threat to the right to privacy and insufficient data protection provisions; the use of an omnibus Bill to enact the impugned amendments and lack of Senate’s participation; the perpetuation of marginalization and exclusion of vulnerable groups who face challenges in getting registration as Kenyans; and the lack of limitations on the powers to be exercised by the public officers in charge of NIIMS. 306. The 3rd and 6th Interested Parties in addition contended that the impugned amendments seek to limit the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, but do not meet the threshold for such limitation set out in Article 24 of the Constitution, to the extent that they do not specify and address the parameters set out in that Article. They contended, in particular, that the new data sought to be collected under NIIMS has no rational connection with the stated objectives of the Act, nor are they reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. 307. On its part, the 4th Interested Party in addition put forward a case for stateless persons. It contended that just like Nubians, stateless persons are unable to access documentation of citizenship in Kenya, which has resulted in restrictions in enjoyment of rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and under international and regional human rights instruments. Further, that stateless persons are limited in access to birth registrations, identity documents, education, healthcare, employment, property ownership, political participation and freedom of movement which are enshrined in the Constitution. It was its case that stateless persons will be further discriminated against by NIIMS if adequate safeguards are not put in place by the government. 308. The 5th Interested Party, elaborated on the discriminatory practices and profiling that are likely to be caused by NIIMS. It contended that vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly who, for lack of identity documents or poor quality of fingerprints, may be locked out of the system, will not be able to get services. Further, that persons may also be targeted from the data collected by NIIMS for personal, commercial and political gain. 309. The 5th Interested Party further contended that under NIIMS, it is possible for the government to control the economic, social and cultural existence of individuals, and to control access to subsidized food supply, healthcare, and social welfare among other important social services, which undermines the sovereignty of the people of Kenya. THE RESPONDENTS’ CASES The 1st Respondent’s Case 310. The 1st Respondent is the Honourable Attorney General who is the principal legal adviser to the government of the Republic of Kenya and represents the national government in court. His office, powers and responsibilities are as established under Article 156 of the Constitution of Kenya and the Office of the Attorney General Act No. 49 of 2012. The 1st Respondent filed grounds of opposition dated 20th February 2019 and 26th February 2019 in response to the Consolidated Petitions. It was his contention that the Petitions do not disclose any threat of violation of the Constitution; that the Petitions are premised on conjecture and misconceptions that negate the substance and object of NIIMS; and that the formulation and enactment of the impugned amendments were made within the confines of a proper and justified legislative process. He contended further that the registration of persons is a process regulated by the Births and Deaths Registration Act and the Registration of Persons Act and http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 45/174