85 appointment of the Data Commissioner, and registration of the data controllers and processors, as well as enactment of operational regulations. Therefore, there was in existence a legal framework on the collection and processing of personal data, adequate protection of the data required the operationalisation of that legal framework. • The respondents explained the measures they put in place to ensure the safety of the data collected by NIIMS and the security of the system, including the encryption of the data and restricted access. However, there was no specific regulatory framework that governed the operations and security of NIIMS. The legal framework on the operations of NIIMS was inadequate, and posed a risk to the security of data that would be collected in NIIMS. • On the effects of the amendments to media, the court held that the legality of the amendments to Previously, the appointment of members of the CAK Board was to be conducted through a process provided for under section 6B, then repealed by the impugned Act. The impugned amendments had done away with the elaborate process under section 6B and vested the powers of appointment in the President and the Cabinet Secretary. Those changes in the law did not accord with article 34(5) of the Constitution. The input of civil society and of the media was essentially removed from the process of appointment of the chairperson and members of the Board of the regulator established under legislation intended by the Constitution to set and regulate and monitor compliance with media standards. The body established, under the amendments made under the impugned Act, would then comprise of appointees of the Executive. A body whose Chair was appointed by the President, whose Board was made up of Principal Secretaries in government, and the rest of whose members were appointed by the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Information, Communication and Technology, himself a presidential appointee, could not be considered an independent body contemplated under article 34(5). A media regulator that was controlled by government, as would be the case should the appointment of the Board of CAK be left to the process set out in section 6 of KICA as amended by the impugned Act, would pose a serious threat of violation of the right to freedom of expression and of the media guaranteed under article 34, and would be in conflict with article 34(5). The impact of such a situation on democracy could not be contemplated. Section 6 of KICA as amended by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2018 was unconstitutional, null and void. • The petitioners had not demonstrated how the amendments to the Children Act by the impugned law violated the Constitution. The petitioners instead challenged the constitutionality of the Child Welfare Society Order (Legal Notice No. 58 of May 21, 2014). However, the challenge was not one of the matters raised in the petition. Parties were bound by their pleadings, and a matter that was not in the pleadings could not be introduced at the submission stage and the court be called upon to make a determination thereon. Accordingly, the issues raised could not be addressed. Petition partly allowed with each party to bear their own costs. A declaration that section 6 of the CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST