A Mummy, who is my father? A critique of the High Court’s ruling in FAO v RAO and 2 others vis-a-vis LNW v Attorney General and 3 others

Abstract

This paper critically examines the High Court's recent ruling in FAO v RAO and 2 others, highlighting its reliance on the now unconstitutional Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The case contrasts sharply with the earlier LNW v Attorney General and 3 others, where the court invalidated the same provision for being inconsistent with Articles 27, 28, and 53 of the Constitution. Through the lens of Maina, a fictional seven-year-old boy born out of wedlock, the paper illustrates the real-world impact of legal decisions on the rights and identity of children. The critique underscores how the court's decision in FAO v RAO and 2 others represents a judicial regression, undermining established legal protections for children born out of wedlock and contradicting previous progressive rulings. This inconsistency perpetuates legal uncertainty and social injustice, signaling a troubling disregard for the doctrine of stare decisis. The paper calls for legislative and judicial accountability to ensure that laws reflect constitutional values and protect the rights of all children, regardless of their birth circumstances.