President Ruto’s proclamation has unleashed a surge of ID applicants at Nyayo House and its offices in North Eastern Kenya, overwhelming staff. Sources note that many applicants, some barely conversant in Kiswahili or English, are demanding urgent processing yet fail to meet the Act’s requirements. Officers report relentless pressure from North Eastern politicians, who accuse them of defying the president’s order. However, they have held firm, insisting that they remain bound by the 1947 Act until Parliament amends or replaces it
By Mdadisi Mmoja
President William Ruto’s proclamation on the registration and issuance of IDs to residents of border counties signed on 5 February 2025, has thrown the Office of the Registrar of Persons into disarray, according to sources speaking to The Weekly Vision. The directive, aimed at abolishing extra vetting for residents in border regions, has triggered a flurry of activity and confusion over its legal standing to existing parliamentary law.
Sources reveal that moments after the proclamation was signed, panic gripped the Registrar’s office, prompting an urgent meeting. Security personnel from intergovernmental agencies—including the Ministry of Interior and National Administration, the National Security Council (NSC), the National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC), the National Police Service (NPS), and the National Intelligence Service (NIS)—convened for an emergency session. While the details of their discussions remain confidential, a key concern was how to reconcile the presidential proclamation with the Registration of Persons Act (Cap 107), the longstanding parliamentary legislation governing ID issuance.
Enacted in 1947 and effective from 1949, with subsequent amendments since then, the Registration of Persons Act mandates that every Kenyan citizen over 18 must register with the National Registration Bureau, providing proof of birth or citizenship. Section 3 outlines these basic requirements, while Section 6, titled “Registration of Persons in Certain Areas,” grants the Principal Registrar authority to impose additional procedures in designated regions: “The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, direct that in any area specified in the notice, every person who is required to register under this Act shall attend at such place and time as may be specified for the notice for the purpose of being registered.” This clause has historically allowed administrative vetting in border counties like North Eastern Kenya, though it is not explicitly mandated in the Act.
President Ruto’s proclamation has unleashed a surge of ID applicants at Nyayo House and its offices in North Eastern Kenya, overwhelming staff. Sources note that many applicants, some barely conversant in Kiswahili or English, are demanding urgent processing yet fail to meet the Act’s requirements. Officers report relentless pressure from North Eastern politicians, who accuse them of defying the president’s order. However, they have held firm, insisting that they remain bound by the 1947 Act until Parliament amends or replaces it.
Legally, Ruto’s proclamation, issued under his executive powers (Article 131 of the Constitution), does not supersede parliamentary legislation. The National Assembly’s authority under Article 94 makes Acts like Cap 107 superior unless superseded by new legislation or struck down as unconstitutional. The proclamation adjusts administrative practice—removing vetting not explicitly required by the Act—rather than rewriting the law. If it waived statutory essentials such as proof of birth, it could face a court challenge for exceeding executive scope, though no such case had emerged as of 25 February 2025. Critics, including Trans Nzoia Governor George Natembeya and Wiper Party Leader Kalonzo Musyoka, have flagged security risks, amplifying the debate.
In Kenya’s constitutional hierarchy, the Constitution reigns supreme (Article 2), and parliamentary Acts hold greater weight than executive proclamations. Ruto’s move, while practical within his directive powers (Article 132), is not a legal override of Parliament’s authority. For now, the Registrar’s office remains caught between presidential intent and legislative limits, with staff adhering to the Act amid mounting pressure.
