81 also, in their view, in contempt of court for disregarding precedents that prohibited use of miscellaneous amendments to effect substantive amendments in the law. The petitioners further argued that the enactment of the impugned Act was in violation of the constitutional principle that required participation of the public in the enactment of legislation. It was their case that the period of seven (7) days given to the public to participate in the process of amendment was so short that no meaningful participation would have taken place in view of the fact that there were 69 pieces of statutes contained in the Bill. They urged the court to declare the entire impugned Act unconstitutional, null and void. Key Issues for Determinatiom The major issues that the court was to determine were whether the process of enactment of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 as an omnibus bill constituted contempt of court; whether the enactment of the impugned Act required the participation of the senate; whether the fact that some of the statutes amended by the impugned Act had previously been amended or passed with the participation of the Senate meant that those laws concerned county governments; whether the collection of biometric data, Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) data, Global Positioning System (GPS) data and any other information required under National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) as per the impugned amendment would amount to violation of the right to privacy; whether the amendment to the Kenya Information and Communications Act which vested the power of appointment of the board of the Communication Authority of Kenya solely on the President and the Cabinet Secretary violated the Constitution and whether the legislative process leading to the enactment of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 rendered the whole Act unconstitutional. Summary of Judgement • • On the issue of the law making process, the court held that the failure to comply with the laid down mechanism for the passing of legislation could lead to invalidation of statutes by courts. Legislation had to conform to the constitution in terms of both its content and the manner in which it was adopted. Failure to comply with manner and form requirements in enacting legislation would render the legislation invalid and courts had the power to declare such legislation invalid. Courts not only had a right but also a duty to ensure that the law-making process prescribed by the constitution was observed. If the conditions for law-making processes were not complied with, it had the duty to say so and declare the resulting statute invalid. On whether the amendments could be effected via an omnibus bill, the court held that the National Assembly had improved the manner in which it deployed the use of omnibus bills in its legislative business. The decisions relied on by the petitioners to assert that omnibus Bills should not be used to effect substantive amendments to statute were made in different circumstances and they could only be applied with CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST