82 • • • • necessary modification, taking into account the prevailing parliamentary practices. The targeted amendments were conveyed in a single Bill; however, the individual statutes were flagged out and committed to the relevant Departmental Committee for consideration and collection of public views. That information was relayed to the public when they were invited through the newspaper adverts to present their views on the Bill. It could not be concluded that the use of an omnibus bill to effect the amendments ipso facto impeded public participation. However, the use of an omnibus bill to effect amendments to several Acts of Parliament was likely to hinder the participation of the people in the legislative process. Depending on the number of the proposed amendments, the time given might not be sufficient. That was not the same as saying that public participation was not conducted or that it was inadequate On public participation, the court held that there were efforts made by the National Assembly in facilitating public participation when using the omnibus bill mechanism in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018. The legislature intended to carry amendments on the targeted Acts without the use of the term “minor”. From the advertisement of May 7, 2018, it was clear that each Act targeted for amendment was linked to the relevant committee. Only a part of the amendments and not all of them were subject to stakeholder engagement in the Committees. Coupled with the fact that there was sufficient time availed to the public to give their views on the amendments, public participation in the circumstances of the petition was sufficient. On the right to privacy the court held that Information privacy included the rights of control that a person had over personal information. Such personal information would in the first place concern information which closely related to the person and was regarded as intimate, and which a person would want to restrict the collection, use and circulation thereof. Examples include information about one’s health. But other information about that person could also be considered private and hence protected under the right to information privacy, even if that information related to their presence or actions in a public place or a place accessible for the public. Such information over which individuals had an interest to keep private also included information and data about their unique human characteristics, which allowed them to be recognized or identified by others, as it was information about one’s body and about one’s presence , image and identity, in both private and public places. The applicable test in determining whether there was an invasion or violation of the right to privacy essentially involved an assessment as to whether the invasion was unlawful. The presence of a ground of justification (such as statutory authority) meant that an invasion of privacy was not wrongful. Under the Constitution, by contrast, a two-stage analysis had to be employed in deciding whether there was a violation of the right to privacy. First the scope of the right had to be assessed to determine whether law or conduct had infringed the right. If there was an infringement it had to be determined whether it was justifiable under the limitation clause. Specifically as regards a determination of whether there was a violation of the right to CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST