Every nation has a duty to protect information that could compromise national security.
Intelligence operations, defence plans and sensitive infrastructure cannot be left exposed under the guise of openness.
In that respect, the proposed amendments to the Access to Information Act raise legitimate issues that deserve careful consideration.
But history also teaches that secrecy, if left unchecked, can easily become a shield for incompetence, corruption and abuse of power.
The constitutional right to access information is not a privilege granted by the state; it is a cornerstone of Kenya's democracy. It enables citizens, journalists and civil society to hold public institutions accountable.
Any law that expands the state's power to classify information must therefore contain equally strong safeguards against misuse.
Clear definitions of what constitutes a national security risk, independent oversight, regular reviews of classified material and effective avenues for appeal are essential.
Without these protections, there is a real danger that embarrassing or politically inconvenient information could be hidden behind the label of "national security".
Parliament must resist the temptation to legislate in broad terms.
Precision is critical.
The challenge is not choosing between security and transparency, but ensuring that one does not extinguish the other.
Kenya needs laws that protect genuine state secrets while preserving the public's constitutional right to know.
National security should never become a convenient excuse for unnecessary secrecy.
Quote of the Day: "Wherever despotism abounds, the sources of public information are the first to be brought under its control."—30th US President Calvin Coolidge was born on July 4, 1872
