Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR asserted that GPS targets an individual’s communications and their exact whereabouts, which is very intrusive into one’s right to privacy, while the definition of “biometric” in the Act permits the collection, storage, and retention of an inordinate amount of data. 24. The 1st Petitioner contended, in addition, that there are insufficient safeguards in the existing laws to protect the personal data that will be collected. Further, that there are no effective measures to ensure that the data will not be accessed by persons who are not authorized by law to receive, process and use it, or that it is not used for purposes incompatible with the reason for its collection. It was also its contention that the amendments to the Act are silent on whether citizens will be able to have access to the information gathered, and whether they can ask for incorrect data to be deleted or rectified. 25. Lastly, it was the 1st Petitioner’s case that the impugned amendments do not comply with core data protection principles on consent and legitimacy, fair and lawful processing, purpose and relevance of data, management of the data lifecycle, transparency of processing, as well as confidentiality and security of personal data. It contended that the Data Protection Bill 2018 that was then going through the legislative process was “confusing, mixes concepts, lacks clear objectives and key definitions and otherwise leaves many loopholes.” 26. The 1st Petitioner therefore asked the court to grant the following orders: a) A declaration that section 3, 5 & 9 of the Registration of Persons act as amended by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act 2018 are unconstitutional for infringing the right to privacy, dignity, socioeconomic rights, the right to public participation and the right to equality and non-discrimination. b) A declaration that Sections 3, 5 & 9 of the Registration of Persons Act as amended by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act 2018 are unconstitutional because the manner in which they were amended and the procedure thereto was constitutionally infirm. c) A declaration that implementation of Sections 3, 5 & 9 of the Registration of Persons Act as amended by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act 2018 is unconstitutional because the State has failed to provide statutory framework to protect the right to privacy and protection of data. d) A declaration that the State must implement the decisions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in the cases of, respectively, Nubian Community v. Kenya and Children of Nubian Descent v. Kenya before commencing on NIIMS registration process. e) An order declaring that Section 3, 5 & 9 of the Registration of Persons Act as amended by the Statute Law Miscellaneous (Amendment) Act 2018 are unconstitutional. f) Costs of this suit be provided for. The 1st Petitioner’s Evidence 27. In his witness statement, Anand Venkatanarayanan, who testified as PW2, described himself as an expert on Cyber Security and Computer Fraud Forensic Analysis, with a special interest on Financial Modelling. He stated that he graduated in 1998 with a Bachelor’s degree, with distinction, in Technology with a Computer Science Major from the University of Madras. He stated further that he has 21 years’ experience in various aspects of computer software, and had given affidavit evidence as a cyber-security expert in the Aadhaar case in the Supreme Court of India in support of the petitioners therein. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 6/174