Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR in order to address matters of national security and development. It was also his contention that matters of national registration and identification of persons are sanctioned by the Constitution and enactment of a law to regulate them cannot deprive the Petitioners of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 31 of the Constitution. He further averred that the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest on grounds of national security, to preserve public order, to protect public health, to maintain moral standards, to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or to meet the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. 498. Mr. Sialai contended that these Petitions contravene the principle of presumption of constitutionality of legislation enacted by Parliament and are also a threat to the doctrine of separation of powers. He further contended that they are an encroachment on the legislative mandate of Parliament, and the orders sought by the Petitioners are tantamount to asking the Court to amend or repeal a piece of legislation. He therefore urged the Court not to exercise its discretion to grant the orders sought in the said Petitions as the Petitioners have not adduced any or any cogent evidence to demonstrate that their rights have been infringed by the enactment of the impugned amendments. His position was that the Petitions are devoid of merit, are frivolous, generally argumentative and an outright abuse of the court process and merely intended to stifle the 6th Respondent’s mandate to legislate under the Constitution and ought to be dismissed. 499. In his Supplementary Affidavit, Mr. Sialai averred that during the process of the passage of the impugned amendments, each National Assembly Departmental Committee was tasked to examine each amendment as if they were distinct legislations. Further, in the advertisement calling for submissions to the various committees, each thematic area was distinctively before a relevant Departmental Committee in accordance with the Second Schedule of the National Assembly Standing Orders. Further, that the newspaper advertisement indicated which committee would deal with which subject matter in order to aid the public in presenting their views. It was also his averment that during the debates on the impugned amendments, Chairpersons of the respective committees were given time to indicate the views of the committees and those of the public. Further, that during committal in the House, Chairpersons of Committees were also required to move their respective amendments unlike in the past where this was done by the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. According to Mr. Sialai, these were deliberate adjustment of rules of procedure to accommodate examination of the amendments by the House. 500. Mr. Sialai urged the Court to examine the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill in the same manner as in the context of a Finance Bill which is passed every year by the National Assembly and whose intention is to amend several laws to deal with revenue-raising measures or even repeals in entirety certain taxation provisions in the law. He argued that the effect of a Finance Bill cannot be underrated to constitute an interpretation as minor amendments. It was his contention that this scenario applies also to a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill whose intention is to amend many statutes. It contended that neither the Constitution nor the rules of the House bar Parliament from undertaking its legislative business using a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill as long as the principles of public participation are adhered to. 501. According to Mr. Sialai, as a matter of Parliamentary practice, Parliament consolidates amendments due to either backlog of unlegislated areas or to save on Parliamentary time. He therefore argued that courts should let Parliament decide on its own nomenclature of Bills. It was his averment that the intent of the Statute law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 18 of 2018 was stated in the Memoranda of Objects and Reasons as being ‘to make various wide-ranging amendments on various statutes’. 502. He observed that the Supreme Court of Kenya in Speaker of the Senate & Another v Attorney-General & 4 Others 2013 [eKLR] had recognized the power of the Houses of Parliament to establish and regulate their internal procedures without undue interference from courts. Further, the principle of separation of powers requires that there be mutual respect between the courts and the legislature, and that courts should exercise restraint when called upon to determine matters relating to the exercise of legislative power by Parliament, citing in this regard various http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 74/174