Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Further, that NIIMS integrates this foundational information with functional information held by other government institutions which IPRS does not do. It was therefore his averment that IPRS performs a passive function of merely receiving personal information from particular databases and storing them, while NIIMS performs the active function of collecting information first hand from the subject, and regularly integrates and updates the said information. Accordingly, that IPRS relies on data from other agencies while NIIMS relies on data received directly from the information subject. 391. Mr. Kimotho termed the allegation by the Petitioners that NIIMS would lead to infringement of the right to privacy as bare allegations. He stated that none of the Petitioners have set out with any degree of precision or specificity the manner in which this right has been violated, or is threatened with violation. It was his position that the petitions are based on abstract and hypothetical situations devoid of any real dispute. Accordingly, the allegation that the amendments in the Act that introduce Global Positioning System (GPS) as one of the particulars required in registration of citizens and residents is an infringement of the right to privacy is false and misleading. He further averred that GPS is merely a precise geographical location, expressed in longitude and latitude and only describes the precise location of a person’s place of residence. He asserted that in any event, GPS is not currently being collected by the NIIMS data capture form in use. 392. Mr. Kimotho averred further that DNA as a unique identifier is not part of the personal information collected by the data capture tool. He, however, observed that the collection of DNA is an important tool in the prevention and investigation of crime and in curbing terrorism. 393. Regarding the contention that the impugned amendments seek to unnecessarily obtain personal information of Kenyan citizens and residents, and that the said information is not secure, Mr. Kimotho stated that information of a similar nature has been in the custody of the 4th Respondent in the exercise of its statutory functions. Furthermore, that this information is currently held in a “protected system” within the meaning of the Kenya Information and Communications Act and Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act and that the said Acts provide for penalties for offences involving protected computer systems. 394. It was his deposition further that NIIMS is operationalized under the Act and the information captured and stored therein therefore enjoys the protection of the provisions of sections 14 (1) (k), (l) & (m) of the Act which provided for penalties for unauthorized disclosure of the information. Moreover, that pursuant to sections 83G, 83H and 83I of the Kenya Information and Communications Act, personal information collected and held in the custody of the 4th Respondent is stored in electronic form. Mr. Kimotho cited various provisions of the Kenya Information and Communications Act and other instruments that safeguard the security and integrity of electronic records. He also deposed that adequate and effective administrative procedures, guidelines, custom and practices exist in the public service with respect to management of information held by government that guarantee security and integrity of that information. According to Mr. Kimotho, there has been no report of any compromise in the security of the digital records held by the 4th Respondent. 395. Mr. Kimotho denied the averments by the Petitioners that the data collection in NIIMS would be undertaken by a foreign corporation. It was his averment that on the contrary, it is only the biometric registration gadgets that were procured from a foreign firm as no Kenyan firm has the capacity to manufacture such gadgets. He averred that NIIMS was developed by the government of Kenya through the mandated Ministries, Departments and Agencies, and is therefore the intellectual property of the government. He asserted that the Petitioners had failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of the existing safeguards that protect personal information, and the manner in which the amendments to the Act violate the right to privacy. 396. On the concern raised by the Petitioners regarding vetting committees in the issuance of identity documents, Mr. Kimotho deposed that vetting is not a discriminatory process. Rather, it is an objective and verifiable process aimed at establishing the authenticity of a person’s claim to Kenyan citizenship. Further, that vetting committees http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 57/174