87 were enacted unprocedurally without adequate public participation and the Senate having played its role. Key Issues for Determination The main issues that the court had to determine was whether the amendments made to the Registration of Persons Act through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 were unconstitutional on grounds that public participation requirements were not fulfilled; whether the amendments made to the Registration of Persons Act through the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 were constitutional given that they were substantive as opposed to minor and they related to the establishment of the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS); whether the amendments which related to the establishment of the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS,) were unconstitutional on grounds that they were not passed by the Senate; whether the legal provisions related to National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) as introduced under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 were unconstitutional on grounds that they violated rights to privacy and children’s rights as there were security risks posed by the collection of personal data and whether the legal provisions related to National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS) as introduced under the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 were unconstitutional on grounds that rights to equality and non-discrimination of marginalized groups such as the Nubian Community would be violated because of the potential exclusion risks arising from difficulties in obtaining identification documents from the government. Summary of Judgment • On public participation, the court held that the doctrine of public participation encompassed the right to directly participate in political affairs and also indirect participation through elected representatives. The fulfilment of public participation would include allowing the public to engage in public debate and dialogue with elected representatives at public hearings and ensuring that citizens had necessary information and an effective opportunity to exercise the right to political participation. That entailed two aspects- providing meaningful opportunities for public participation in the law-making process and taking measures to ensure that people had the ability to take advantage of The respondents had demonstrated that the of the impugned legislation was to setup the opportunities provided. The obligation to facilitate purpose an identification system and to the extent that it public participation ranged from providing information was necessary, it was constitutional. and building awareness to partnering in decision-making. Public participation in the legislative process was a legal requirement. However, the manner and means of achieving public participation should be left to the legislature. The duty of the legislature in ensuring public participation was to inform the public of its business and provide an environment and opportunity CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST