Got a link to the article where they said this? They were doubtful, back when the document was only seen on a fuzzy video. And somewhat jealous, since they'd been trying to get a Kenyan BC for some time. But all or most of their arguments have been refuted. For example they say the doctor never practiced in that hospital, but evidence, in the form of technical papers authored by him, indicating that he did for a time. Same with the name of the place, which they said didn't have that name in '61, but which it's now been shown that it did.
But be that as it may, it is still evidence. Evidence that, unlike the images shown of a supposed CoLB, has been entered into the record in a court of law, and not refuted. (The court never got around to looking any evidence, and the defense never submitted any counter evidence).
Yeah, that very article you posted the link to. The one where they list 8 defects in the document. The one where they say their sources call it a forgery. The one where they posted an actual picture of an actual Kenyan birth certificate from that period and which didn't look anything like Smith's document. That article.