Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 574. According to the 2nd Petitioner, the legislature is also expected to ensure that views that may influence any legislation are taken into account before any such law is passed. The 2nd Petitioner asserts that public participation promotes openness, transparency and accountability, which are the foundational tenets of a constitutional democracy. In that regard the Robert Gakuru Case is cited as aptly capturing the centrality of public participation in Kenya’s legislative processes. The decision is also relied upon in support of the statement that public participation ought to be real and not illusory, and ought not to be treated as a mere formality for the purposes of fulfillment of the constitutional dictates. 575. The Doctors for Life Case is identified as underlining the standard and quality of public participation. Relying on the said case, the 2nd Petitioner submits that public involvement in the legislative process requires access to information and the facilitation of learning and understanding in order to achieve meaningful involvement by ordinary citizens. Further, that the legislature should create conditions that are conducive to the effective exercise of the right to participate in the law-making process. 576. According to the 2nd Petitioner, the nature of the legislation and its effect on the citizens plays a role in determining the degree of facilitation that is reasonable and the mechanisms that are most appropriate to achieve public involvement. The case ofMatatiele Municipality & Others vsThe President of South Africa & Others (Supra) is cited in support of this statement. The 2nd Petitioner argues that the alleged public participation prior to the enactment of the impugned amendments was cosmetic, and well below the constitutional standard laid out in the Robert Gakuru Case. It is the 2nd Petitioner’s observation that the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the National Assembly require more than mere advertisement in a newspaper in view of the fact that the impugned amendments impact on every sphere of the day to day lives of the public thus affecting citizens’ fundamental rights. 577. In order to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of public participation, the 2nd Petitioner asserts that the stakeholders meetings that were purportedly held on 14th, 19th and 20th June 2018 were in actual fact internal parliamentary proceedings attended by parliamentary staff within Parliament buildings, and were out of reach to ordinary citizens. Further, that no evidence was adduced of actual invitations to the public or other stakeholders to those meetings. It is therefore the 2nd Petitioner’s conclusion that the said meetings fell short of the standard of public participation, and the impugned amendments therefore violated Articles 10(2)(a) and 118(1)(b) of the Constitution. 578. It is further the submission of the 2nd Petitioner that the advertisements in the newspapers inviting members of the public to submit representations on the impugned law as a whole were themselves cosmetic. It contends that the said adverts failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Article 24(2)(a) of the Constitution that require that any legislation limiting a constitutional right must specifically express the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation. Its view is that had the requirement been complied with, there could have been greater participation by the public. 579. The 2nd Petitioner also takes issue with the seven days given to the public to provide their views. Its position is that the public was given seven days to submit representations on proposed amendments to 68 Acts, but no effort was made to provide any information. It contends that there was no memorandum or explanation setting out the scope, effect and objects of the impugned amendments to enable the public make informed representations. According to the 2nd Petitioner, no input was expected from the public in such circumstances. 580. Further, that considering the nature, importance, intensity and impact of the impugned amendments on the public, seven days was an unreasonably short period to expect any person to appreciate the full import of the impugned amendments, and to submit any meaningful representations thereon. It is the 2nd Petitioner’s contention that there was no attempt to exhort the public to participate in the process of the enactment of the Bill. The 2nd Petitioner therefore concludes that the impugned amendments failed constitutional muster as they were passed in http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 89/174