R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR cannot enjoy the equal protection of the law nor avail of the statutory privilege of protection and or immunity from being arbitrarily deported to other countries like other Kenyan citizens. (p) A declaration that the petitioner as an intersexed person is a member of sex minority group which should enjoy the protection of the law and that as an intersexual the petitioner has a human right to define his or her own sexual identity. (q) A declaration that the respondents have violated the petitioner’s right to privacy and subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment. (r) All such orders leads and or directions as are just, appropriate to safeguard the Constitutional and fundamental rights of the petitioner under the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya and, (s) A declaration that the respondents are liable to pay the damages, and (t) General damages. (u) Costs of this petition, and (v) An order that the petitioner be granted legal recognition. (w) Any orders that this court shall deem fit to grant. FACTS AVERRED IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION 4. From the amended petition, an affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 28th June, 2007, supplementary affidavits sworn by the petitioner on 7th July, 2009, and 18th November 2009 respectively, and an affidavit sworn by the petitioner’s advocate John M. Chigiti on 26th August, 2008, the following facts emerge: 5. The petitioner was born with both male and female genitalia. The option of corrective surgery was not pursued as the petitioner’s parents could not afford the costs. The petitioner was given a male name by his parents. For the purposes of this judgment we shall also refer to the petitioner as “him”. Due to his ambiguous gender the petitioner was unable to secure a birth certificate, identity card, or any travel documents. The petitioner dropped out of school at Class 3. He later attempted to marry but could not live with the wife, nor could his attempted marriage be given legal recognition. The petitioner became secluded and ended up in conflict with the law, being charged with an offence of robbery with violence in Kitui Chief Magistrate Court Criminal Case No.144 of 2005. 6. While the petitioner was in prison remand, awaiting the determination of his case, he was subjected to the usual statutory search at the prisons. It was realized during the search that he had both http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 5/45