IDEMIA

Oversight record in date order

1. Kenya: 23 April 2019: Parliament adopted recommendations for investigation and conditional debarment over company registration, and immediate recovery of payments. IDEMIA contested their legal basis and said it had won the tender on merit. Parliament defended its oversight powers and said the company had been heard ¹.
2. Kenya: 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. Kenya: 8 April 2020: The High Court rejected IDEMIA's procedural unfairness claim but quashed recommendations insofar as they retrospectively applied legislation. It held that Parliament lacked power to direct recovery through cancellation of contracts. The judgment did not establish an actual ten-year debarment or give blanket clearance of every procurement issue ¹.
4. Kenya: 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.
5. Kenya: 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.
6. Netherlands: 29 October 2024: A RvIG authorisation decision recorded missing tactile features in 623 refugee or foreign-national travel documents and authorised identifying affected holders. It was an administrative response, not a judicial liability ruling ³.
7. Netherlands: 6 May 2025: Answering MPs, the minister said the production cause had been fixed, blank stock checked and defective stock destroyed. Supplier mitigation was reported and 166 passports had been returned. This is a ministerial account, not independent audit clearance ².
8. Nepal: The case study includes a named department director's statement supporting the partnership, not an independent audit or regulator finding ¹.
9. Nepal: Later procurement and court outcomes remain a primary-source verification gap. This historical record does not establish the current supplier or resolve later disputes.
10. Nepal: The supplier case study contains the department director general's support for deployment, not an independent official assessment ¹.
11. Nepal: Later policy and court outcomes remain a primary-source verification gap. This historical record does not assess current mandatory-use rules or establish the outcome of later proceedings.