Border ContractsPublic register

Kenya · biometric identity · ID documents

NIIMS Huduma Namba biometric enrolment kits

Under review Status as of 4 March 2022 · Funding type: Not published

Government testimony in the NIIMS litigation identifies OT Morpho, now IDEMIA, as supplier of 31,000 registration kits procured in late 2018 1. The court proceedings concern the state's identity programme and safeguards, not a finding that the kit supplier controlled the database. The 2020 judgment allowed implementation subject to a lawful framework but rejected DNA and GPS collection. A later rollout decision was quashed for lack of a prior impact assessment. In March 2022 the appeal court recorded subsequent compliance and refused interim relief 2. Current contract performance remains unconfirmed.

Key terms

Read the guide to API and PNR passenger data.

Buyer
Ministry of Interior 1
Vendor
OT Morpho (now IDEMIA)
Vendor based in
Not confirmed
Signed
Late 2018 procurement, according to government testimony 1
Duration
Not published
Value
Not published
Funding
Not published
Procurement route
Not published
System ownership
Not published
Data terms
Government testimony described government-developed software and 31,000 supplier kits, cleaned in April 2019. This does not establish supplier access to the national database or contractual retention terms 1

Timeline

  1. Signed or started: Late 2018 procurement, according to government testimony 1
  2. 30 January 2020: The High Court accepted the public purpose of biometric identification and rejected the pleaded discrimination case. It found DNA and GPS collection unconstitutional and required an appropriate regulatory framework before NIIMS implementation. Government defended encryption and restricted access, but the court found gaps in safeguards 1.
  3. 14 October 2021: As quoted in the later appeal ruling, the High Court quashed the November 2020 card-rollout decision and ordered a data protection impact assessment. Government argued that the data had already been collected and that interruption would cause public loss 2.
  4. 4 March 2022: The Court of Appeal refused a stay. It recorded submission of the impact assessment and said compliance paved the way for rollout. This was an interim ruling, not determination of the merits appeal or clearance of all data practices 2.
  5. 4 March 2022: Recorded status is Under review.

Sources

  1. Kenya High Court: Nubian Rights Forum v Attorney General, paragraphs 418 to 419 and 1024 to 1047 (30 January 2020)
  2. Kenya Court of Appeal: Mucheru v Katiba Institute, stay ruling (4 March 2022)

Fields marked "Not published" or "Not confirmed" could not be established from an official or reliable source. If you hold a document that fills a gap or corrects an entry, write to editor@bordercontracts.org. Last checked 19 October 2026.

Related entries