Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR 667. Confronted with the said authorities the Respondents’ Counsel, and in particular Mr. Mwendwa for the 6th Respondent, changed tact and asked the Court to find that the decision of the Court of Appeal on the issue of the use of omnibus Bills was made obiter dictum. Mr. Mwendwa also reiterated his submission that directing Parliament not to use omnibus Bills in the enactment of substantive legislation amounts to chipping away the powers bestowed on Parliament by the people to legislate. 668. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the 2019 Law Society Case may have answered the 6th Respondent’s concern about the alleged degradation of its legislative powers when it held that: “In the case of judicial power, its derivation and vesting is provided for in Article 159 of the Constitution; (1) Judicial authority is derived from the people and vests in, and shall be exercised by, the courts and tribunals established by or under this Constitution. Similarly, Parliament’s legislative authority is neither innate nor self-authored. Rather, it is derived from and delegated to it by the people, is exercised on their behalf and must reflect their will in whom sovereignty resides.” 669. It is, however, our considered view that the 6th Respondent’s concerns need further interrogation. Before considering whether the Court can legitimately direct Parliament on the procedures it should employ to transact its business, we will first deal with the obiter dictum question. Counsel for the 6th Respondent, Mr. Mwendwa, sought to persuade us that the Court of Appeal decided the case based on the issue of public participation and not on the question of the use of an omnibus Bill to effect the amendments to the Law Society of Kenya Act which was the subject of litigation that gave rise to the appeal. 670. In Ekuru Aukot v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2017] eKLR, Mativo, J dealt at length on the meaning and application of the principle of obiter dictum and concluded that:“43. The doctrine of precedent decrees that only the ratio decidendi [13] of a judgment, and not obiter dicta, have binding effect.[14] The fact that obiter dicta are not binding does not make it open to courts to free themselves from the shackles of what they consider to be unwelcome authority by artificially characterising as obiter what is otherwise binding precedent.[15] Only that which is truly obiter may not be followed. But, depending on the source, even obiter dicta may be of potent persuasive force and only departed from after due and careful consideration.”[16] 671. A perusal of the Court of Appeal judgment in the 2019 Law Society Case discloses that the issue of the use of omnibus legislation was one of the grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal identified the grounds of appeal in its judgment as follows:“The appellant, being dissatisfied with that judgment preferred an appeal to this Court. The memorandum of appeal contains three (3) grounds, complaining that the learned judge erred in law and in fact by; a) Misdirecting himself by not finding that the amendments contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 2012 particularly those enumerated in paragraph 19(b) – 20 (b) – (d) of the Petition, are inconsistent with Articles 27,41 and 261 (4) of the Constitution. b) Failing to appreciate that the amendments contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act 2012 seek to introduce substantive amendments to the law. c) Failing to appreciate the need for public participation as enshrined in Article 10 (2) as together with Article http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 107/174