12 • It did not matter whether the petitioner was a Kenyan citizen or not. He was entitled to due process of the law as an incidence of the rule of law. The Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Coordination and the Director of Immigration had no mandate to declare the petitioner a forbidden immigrant because he was not an immigrant. Also, they could not suspend his passport under section 33(1) of the Act since he did not fall in the category of persons whose passports could be suspended and or taken away. The petitioner had not lost, damaged or mutilated his passport for him to apply for a new one. His passport was irregularly seized by state agents. • The petitioner was deported from his country without being subjected to any known due process and or being given an explanation. The respondents were unable to justify their actions against the petitioner. It was unthinkable that a state could deport its own citizen to a second country without regard to the Constitution and the law. Even if the state had reason to act as it did, it was under a constitutional duty to follow the law and not act at whims in complete disregard of the Constitution and the law. The court issued an order quashing the decision of the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Coordination under section 33(1) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 dated February 6,2018 that declared the petitioner a non-citizen of Kenya or that his presence in Kenya was contrary to national interest. An order quashing the decision of the Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Interior and Coordination under section 43(1) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 dated February 6, 2018 that directed the removal of the petitioner from Kenya was also issued. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST