A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems conjunction with the absence of judicial oversight of the regime, defeated the storage of fingerprint data’s constitutionality.224 d) The majority opinion in the Aadhaar judgment centres its discussion of the possible deficiencies of consent in the collection of identity system data around children. The majority determines that because children cannot provide legal consent, their participation in the system relies on their parents’ consent.225 Once a child reaches the age of majority – when they can provide legal consent – they must be given the option to exit the system.226 e) The Kenyan High Court cites the necessity of both knowledge and consent of data subjects as an international principle underlying data protection requirements.227 Although the court broadly finds that consent is sufficiently contemplated by the Kenyan national identity system, the ability to obtain and use DNA information and GPS coordinates without knowledge or consent is a primary reason for the court’s ruling that neither the collection nor use of those types of data is permissible.228 224 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 32–34. 225 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 332 at 401. 226 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 332 at 401. 227 Huduma Namba Judgment, Nubian Rights Forum and Others v. The Hon. Attorney General, Consolidated Petitions No. 56, 58 & 59 of 2019 ¶ 844 (2020) (referencing the OECD Privacy Principles). 228 See Huduma Namba Judgment, ¶ 767. 52