Survey: Guaranteed information access for Kenyan citizens still a challenge

The Constitution, Kenyan flag and the National anthem. [PCS]

Article 35 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to access information held by the State or by private entities when needed to protect or exercise a right.

However, the media, citizens, and civil societies have faced intimidation, threats, blackmail among other challenges when seeking information from both county and national government.

To defend the right, Katiba Institute initiated a 3-year project in Nakuru, Nairobi and Samburu, to train government officials, media, civil societies and security agencies on Access to Information (ATI) rights.

The aim of the project was to empower state institutions and citizens to use ATI to promote good governance and to foster transparency, accountability, and human rights.

Patricia Joseph, the Institute’s Programme Manager, said that the project that concluded this year led to significant progress on information access.

 “County government officials and ward and sub-county administrators understood that they had the responsibility to proactively disseminate information and citizens understood that they had the right to seek for information on development projects, budgets, among other relevant issues,” she said.

However, the project revealed that state institutions still withhold critical information, following an analysis of the ATI letters the institute wrote during their project implementation.

The survey showed that the institute wrote 18 ATI letters to Nakuru County Government, requesting for critical information, out of which 15 were officially received. Three were not.

 “Out of the 15 letters, the county government only responded to nine and took no action to six letters not responded to and the three letters the county declined to officially receive,” noted Patricia.

In Nairobi, Katiba Institute wrote 12 ATI letters to the county government, but only eight were officially received.

Despite receiving the eight, the county government only responded to two letters, but surprisingly took action requested by three letters which they had failed to respond to.

Samburu County officially received 11 ATI letters out of 14 written by the institute. The county responded to four letters and took action sought from one letter that they declined to respond to.

The institute admitted that a gap still existed, especially among security agencies and top government officials who curtail information.

The institute observed that both the national and county government had unlawfully denied sub county and ward administrators necessary information for them to disseminate.

“Residents go to the local offices to seek information on budget, projects, health and education issues, but many officers, mandated to give information, have no information to give,” said Patricia.

The survey also revealed that government agencies do not proactively disclose information and when requested, they either decline, give limited information, or provide complicated ones.

To put pressure on the government, the institute was forced to seek assistance from the Commission on Administrative of Justice  (CAJ).

CAJ not only pressured information bearers within top government offices to provide information, but was also forced to summon some of them.

The Institute was also forced to move to court to seek redress when information bearers declined to give information.

Calvin Muga, an officer with Midrift Human Rights Network, pointed out that the remaining 44 counties needed to learn about the same.

 “We need top government officials who curtail information to undergo training like their junior officers, to facilitate smooth dissemination of information,” said Muga.