By Peter Nalika
Digital identity is now one of Kenya’s most contested policy issues. For government, digital IDs are a tool for inclusion. They promise easier access to services, better delivery of social benefits, and wider financial access. From Huduma Namba to NIIMS, and now Maisha Namba and the Maisha Card, the ambition is clear. But Kenya’s experience also shows a harder truth. Without strong safeguards, digital ID can deepen exclusion and weaken trust instead of building it.
Kenya’s Journey So Far
Kenya’s first big step was Huduma Namba, built on the National Integrated Identity Management System. The goal was to merge existing databases. These included national IDs, birth records, and voter data. Biometrics, such as fingerprints and iris scans, were central to the system. Huduma Namba was meant to become the single key to public and private services.
The rollout quickly ran into trouble. Civil society groups raised concerns about privacy, surveillance, and exclusion. In 2021, the High Court ruled the system unlawful. The court cited the absence of a proper Data Protection Impact Assessment. It also pointed to risks faced by minority groups and people without formal documents. The lesson was clear. Speed cannot replace safeguards.
The new Maisha Namba initiative is presented as a correction. It introduces a fresh number system and digital ID cards. The government says it will fix past mistakes. Yet many concerns remain. Will registration become compulsory in practice? How will marginalized groups be included? And how secure will sensitive personal data really be?
Exclusion is the biggest risk. Millions of Kenyans still lack birth certificates or other basic documents. If these remain a requirement, the system will lock out those already on the margins. Pastoralist communities, internally displaced people, and persons with disabilities face similar risks. Women are also more affected. In rural areas, social and economic barriers often make it harder for women to obtain documents. Without targeted outreach, digital ID could widen existing gaps.
Why Privacy and Consent Matter
Privacy is another fault line. Digital ID systems collect deeply sensitive data. Once centralized, this data is hard to protect and even harder to recover if misused. Kenya’s courts have already warned about unclear data flows and weak safeguards. Trust will only grow if privacy is built into the system from the start.
That means collecting only what is necessary. It means clear rules on who can access data and why. Consent must be real, not implied. Citizens should be able to correct errors, challenge misuse, and understand how their information is used. Transparency matters. People need to know when their data is accessed and what remedies exist when things go wrong.
So what would success look like? First, strong and public Data Protection Impact Assessments must guide rollout. Second, the Data Protection Act must be fully enforced, with an independent and well-resourced regulator. Third, inclusion must be practical, not symbolic. Mobile registration units, fee waivers, and non-digital options should remain available. Finally, oversight must be continuous, with civil society and independent audits playing a real role.
Kenya stands at a turning point. Digital ID can unlock access to finance, health, and education. But it can also enable surveillance and exclusion if done poorly. Huduma Namba showed what happens when trust is ignored. Maisha Namba will only succeed if it puts people first.
