Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR any perceived discrimination against any individual or class of persons under the current disparate registration systems. He averred further, that in any event, the need for vetting of applicants for the issuance of legal identification documents upon attaining the majority age, as is currently the practice, would be unnecessary as the requisite personal information would already be in the NIIMS system. According to Dr. Kibicho, the complaint about the alleged discrimination under the current registration system being carried over to NIIMS has no basis. He noted that the Petitioners had not demonstrated what feature of NIIMS would make registration of alleged marginalized communities more difficult. He also dismissed the allegation of discrimination, noting that the 1st Petitioner had, in a letter dated 8th April 2017, paid glowing tributes to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents for a commendable job done in the registration of persons especially in areas where members of the 1st Petitioner reside. 341. Dr. Kibicho also observed that unlike the national identity card which is only issued at the age of majority, the registration for NIIMS will start as early as immediately after birth, thus easing access to services and exercise of constitutional rights. Vetting, if any, is in respect of issuance of national identity cards and registration for NIIMS does not require any vetting. 342. On the concerns raised by the Petitioners with regard to the registration of children, Dr. Kibicho averred that NIIMS will not hinder any child from enjoyment of the rights of a child, but will instead facilitate the enjoyment of such rights including the right to education, health, identity, nationality, and protection from child trafficking and protection from child labour. 343. In his affidavit sworn on 14th May 2019, Dr. Kibicho, averred, first, that no material evidence had been provided by Ms. Fatuma Abdulrahman to support the averments made under the heading “Historical Review of Nubian Experience” in her affidavit of 12th April 2019. It was his averment that the alleged discrimination against the Nubian community relates to shortcomings in the current registration system as opposed to NIIMS, which he contended will address any shortcomings. 344. According to Dr. Kibicho, NIIMS is not designed to, and will not discriminate against Nubians or any other ethnic community. He conceded that members of all border communities, which he defined as communities whose members are found within and outside Kenya, are subjected to vetting in order to ensure that only genuine citizens are issued with identification documents. It was also his position that vetting is further necessitated by national security concerns arising from security risks posed by porous borders. Vetting was therefore not discriminatory, but in any event, the vetting committees complained of were not introduced by the impugned amendments. 345. In response to a complaint by the 1st Petitioner that vetting for purposes of issuance of identity documents was done only twice a week, he averred that there is no regulation or policy stipulating that vetting is to be conducted only on Tuesdays and Thursdays of every week. It was his averment that vetting can be done on a daily basis depending on the number of persons desiring to acquire identity cards. He further stated that contrary to Ms. Abdurahman’s averments, the law requires a person to be issued with an ID card within 30 days of the application for those turning 18 and 15 days for replacement of a lost or unserviceable identity card. It was his contention that whenever an applicant appears before the vetting committee and is positively identified as a Kenyan, he or she is registered immediately thereafter. Dr. Kibicho clarified that that NIIMS registration process is meant to be a continuous exercise and all Kenyans will have an opportunity to register in the system. 346. As regards the decisions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Dr. Kibicho observed that the decisions do not relate to NIIMS and are largely irrelevant to the gravamen of the present dispute. Further, that the said decisions were determined ex parte, and are in any event not binding on the Kenyan State. Dr. Kibicho noted that the 1st Petitioner had alleged that there were no local remedies available for determining the dispute relating to alleged discrimination, and in his view, it was an abuse of process for it to now seek to introduce it before this court. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 50/174