While some eventually obtained IDs, Shauku’s experience highlights the risks of this strategy. Upon discovery one faced prospects of prosecution and imprisonment. This experience also underscores the fact that not all applicants are processed expeditiously. Due process considerations require procedures to be amenable to review or appeal by an independent and impartial tribunal. Reasons should also be given for any decision.108 These aspects are valuable to any process as they promote the right to a fair hearing. In any legal system an aggrieved party should have an opportunity to plead his or her case before another decision-maker. The fact that appeal or review rights exist could also make the original decision-maker act judiciously, as he or she knows that the possibility of their decision being scrutinized by a tribunal exists. In the context of the ID acquisition process it is curious that several respondents were unaware of whether or not they could challenge, for instance, the decision of the Vetting Committee. Interestingly, most officials whom the study met were clueless on this aspect. One could appeal the decision of the Vetting Committee to an appellate body established at the provincial level. Even so, hardly any appeals were filed, as most of the rejected applicants were unaware of this avenue for ventilating their claims. On the importance of reasons, see Edwin Abuya, ‘Past Reflections, Future Insights: African Asylum Law and Policy in Historical Perspective’, (2007) 1 International Journal of Refugee Law 51 at 91-92. 108 OUT OF THE SHADOWS TOWARDS ENSURING THE RIGHTS OF STATELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS AT RISK OF STATELESSNESS IN KENYA 19