Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR (National Assembly Bill No. 12 of 2018) was introduced in the National Assembly. Thereafter, a motion of reduction of publication period from 14 days to 3 days was moved by Honourable Aden Bare Duale (the Member of Parliament for Garissa Township) in accordance with the National Assembly Standing Order 120, and the motion was passed by the House. On the same day, the Bill went through the first reading and was immediately committed to the National Assembly Departmental Committee on Administration and National Security to scrutinize by way of requesting for memoranda from the public as is mandated by Standing Order No. 127 (3) and Article 118 of the Constitution. 492. Mr. Sialai avers that on 7th May 2018, the National Assembly facilitated public participation on the Bill through print media by placing an advertisement in both the Standard and Daily Nation newspapers asking for memoranda from stakeholders. Thereafter, on 14th, 19th and 20th June 2018, the National Assembly Committee on Administration and National Security held stakeholders\ meetings to which all stakeholders, including the Petitioners, were invited, to discuss the Bill, but they did not attend or submit a memorandum. It was his averment that it is therefore untruthful for the Petitioners to allege that there was no public participation. 493. According to Mr. Sialai, the public was involved in the process of enactment of the impugned amendments through invitations to make submissions and memoranda from stakeholders and the public meetings held on 14th and 19th June 2019. Consequently, the amendments introduced to the Act through the impugned amendments did not violate the principle of public participation under the Constitution. He drew attention to the fact that the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, the 3rd Petitioner herein, in its analysis and review of the Bill dated 25th May, 2018 and published in its website, confirmed its approval of the amendments proposed with respect to the Act through the impugned amendments. 494. Mr. Sialai deposed that the National Assembly Committee on Administration and National Security compiled its report having taken into account the nature of the concerns raised by different stakeholders. This report was laid before the National Assembly on 3rd July, 2018. Thereafter, between Tuesday, 7th August 2018 and Thursday, 15th November 2018, the National Assembly, taking into account the concerns of the different sectors, considered and passed the impugned amendments and thereafter the Bill was forwarded to the President for assent in accordance with Article 115 of the Constitution. It was his position therefore that the impugned amendments were enacted in accordance with the Constitution and the National Assembly’s Standing Orders and the National Assembly did not infringe any Article of the Constitution as alleged by the Petitioners. 495. According to Mr. Sialai, the amendments introduced to the Act could not be withdrawn to await the ongoing efforts to anchor them in substantive National Registration Identification Bill 2012 and the Registration and Identification of Persons Bill, 2014 (Senate Bill. No. 39), because the amendments introduced to the Act fell exclusively within the mandate of the National Assembly. This was on the grounds of its proper rubric, being a national legislation under Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. It was also his contention that the purpose and intent of the impugned statute is stated in its Memorandum of Objects and Reasons clause which states that it is “An Act of Parliament to amend the Law relating to Registration of Persons Act, to establish the National Integrated Identification Management System. The Bill proposes to provide for the capture of biometric data and geographical data in the registration of persons in Kenya” 496. Mr. Sialai contended that in any event, matters of national registration and identification of persons are policy decisions solely within the mandate of the Executive and enacted by Parliament. In his view, the concerns raised against capture of biometric and geographical data in the registration of persons in Kenya as enacted in the impugned amendments are unjustified as the amendments are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. 497. He based this assertion on the argument that other modern and democratic countries such as Estonia, UK, Canada, Tanzania and Uganda have embraced the same model of national registration and identification of persons http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 73/174