Katiba Institute executive director Nora Mbagathi during the event hosted by the Media Council of Kenya to commemorate the International Day for Universal Access to Information on Monday, September 28, 2026 /HANDOUT When public bodies take months or years to respond to information requests, they can effectively shut citizens out of timely legal and administrative redress, a new report has found.
The report, ‘Between Principle and Practice’, which analyses Commission on Administrative Justice rulings from October 2022 to March 2026, was released this September by the Data Privacy and Governance Society of Kenya.
It found delays stretching to two and a half years, against the statutory deadline of 21 days.
“For an applicant who needs information to decide or challenge an administrative action within a reasonable window, such delays amount in practice to a denial of the right of access,” the report states.
In ‘Kennedy Riungu v CMA’, the applicant sought information from the Capital Markets Authority on Sanlam Life Insurance and Sanlam Investment on August 11, 2020.
Nearly two years later, in August 2022, the regulator claimed the material had already been released but provided no substantiating details.
A formal response came on February 20, 2023, two and a half years after the request.
In another case, ‘Steve Mandela v Wasreb’, the Water Services Regulatory Board took nearly 16 months to respond to a complaint about alleged billing malpractices by Malindi Water and Sewerage Company.
The applicant followed up in June 2024 and February 2025, with a substantive response coming only on September 3, 2025, after the commission issued a summons and demanded an institutional report.
The report attributes such failures to poor file-numbering, undigitised paper records and a shortage of trained information access officers.
It also warns that delays are not the only concern.
In ‘Fred Apima v Deputy Registrar’, the commission accepted typed certified copies where the applicant had sought verbatim transcripts.
The report said a verbatim transcript captures “tone, hesitation and non-verbal indications” that a typed record loses, warning that allowing institutions to provide less informative formats could undermine access to meaningful information.
Enforcement also remains weak. While criminal prosecution under Section 28 of the Access to Information Act is routinely threatened, the dataset recorded no resulting prosecutions and no mechanism for confirming whether orders are complied with.
Compensation has also been inconsistent. In ‘Fred Apima v Kuppet Kisii Branch’ in 2025, compensation was ordered at Sh10,000 per day. It was withheld in the Kennedy Riungu case despite a comparably lengthy delay.
The report says this points to inconsistent application of an existing remedy.
There were, however, exceptions. In ‘Clauder Musi v National Syndemic Disease Control’ in 2026, a case was resolved within 46 days. The report said this suggested some delays reflected identifiable capacity failures rather than structural problems with the law.
It recommends reforms including stronger record-keeping standards, clearer criteria for compensation, proactive disclosure, proportionality guidelines and a public compliance-tracking register.
The findings came as the Media Council of Kenya and the Commission on Administrative Justice marked the International Day for Universal Access to Information on September 28.
Kenya Editors Guild president Zubeidah Kananu said access to information was essential in combating misinformation.
“We cannot talk about fighting information disorder without talking about access to information. You cannot fight misinformation by withholding information,” she said.
Katiba Institute executive director Nora Mbagathi said access to information was a constitutional promise, not a privilege.
“For disclosure to make a difference, people must be able to find, understand and use the information,” she said, noting that connectivity, cost, geography, language and disability could still prevent people from accessing information.
“When institutions meet this standard, proactive disclosure can become the routine constitutional practice it is intended to be.”
