86 Kenya Information and Communication Act 1998 as amended by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 was unconstitutional, null and void. A declaration that the amendments to section 24 of the Public Finance Management Act introducing sub-section 2A made by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 was unconstitutional, null and void. A declaration that the collection of DNA and GPS co-ordinates for purposes of identification was intrusive and unnecessary, and to the extent that it was not authorised and specifically anchored in empowering legislation, it was unconstitutional and a violation of article 31 of the Constitution. Consequently, in so far as section 5(1) (g) and 5(1)(ha) of the Registration of Persons Act required the collection of Global Positioning Systems coordinates and DNA, the subsections were in conflict with article 31 of the Constitution and were to that extent unconstitutional, null and void. The respondents were at liberty to proceed with the implementation of the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) and to process and utilize the data collected in NIIMS, only on condition that an appropriate and comprehensive regulatory framework on the implementation of NIIMS, that was compliant with the applicable constitutional requirements identified in the judgment, was first enacted. 27. The implementation of National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) should not be undertaken without the enactment of an appropriate and comprehensive regulatory framework. Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) Constitutional Petitions No 56, 58 & 59 of 2019 High Court at Nairobi P Nyamweya, M Ngugi & W Korir, JJ January 30, 2020 Summary of Facts The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018, made amendments to various statutes. It introduced section 9A to the Registration of Persons Act which established the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) which was intended to be a single source of personal information of all Kenyans as well as foreigners that resided in Kenya. The petitioners challenged the amendment on grounds that it violated the Constitution and was made in bad faith. They said that the amendments posed various security risks arising from the collection of personal data and violated rights to privacy, children’s rights and equality and non-discrimination. They also said that they CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST