By GPC News Desk
The Commission on Administrative Justice has ordered the Homa Bay County Government and County Assembly to disclose documents relating to the construction and financing of the new county headquarters.
The directive followed their failure to respond to information requests by Katiba Institute.
Also Read
In two separate rulings dated October 8, 2026, the Office of the Ombudsman found that Katiba Institute was entitled to access information concerning the project, including approvals, financing arrangements, contractual agreements, financial obligations and records of County Assembly deliberations.
The Commission said the information sought concerned the use of public resources and was therefore a matter of public interest.
“Access to information is the cornerstone of democratic governance and accountability,” the Commission said, adding that disclosure of such information promotes transparency and responsible management of public resources.
Katiba Institute Executive Director Nora Mbagathi had requested the information from both the County Government and the County Assembly after submitting separate requests on March 12, 2025.
The requests were received and stamped by the two institutions on March 24, 2025, but neither responded within the statutory period.
In the case involving the County Government, the county requested an additional month to compile the documents, citing the volume of records involved. The Ombudsman granted the extension, but the county still did not provide the requested information or a substantive response.
The Commission consequently found that the county had failed to meet its obligations under the Access to Information Act.
Among the documents sought from the County Government are minutes of the County Executive Committee meeting that approved construction of the headquarters, County Assembly approvals for the project’s lease-to-own financing arrangement and approvals relating to loans or other liabilities.
Katiba Institute also sought approvals from the National Government for the lease-to-own financing model, agreements between the County Pension Fund and Homa Bay County, a report detailing the financial obligations arising from the project and a statement on its implementation status.
The Commission found that the County Government holds the requested information, noting that such records would ordinarily be generated in the course of initiating, financing and implementing a public infrastructure project.
“The Respondent holds the requested sets of information,” the Commission ruled.
It ordered the County Secretary to facilitate access to all seven categories of information within 21 days of the ruling.
The Ombudsman, however, allowed for sensitive information to be redacted where necessary.
It said the existence of potentially exempt information did not justify withholding entire documents where protected sections could be removed while releasing the rest.
A similar finding was made against the Homa Bay County Assembly.
Katiba Institute had sought certified Hansard reports showing the sessions in which construction of the headquarters and the agreement with the County Pension Fund were approved.
It also sought minutes and reports of Assembly committees that considered the project, documents submitted by the County Executive, financial and other implementation reports submitted to the Assembly, and any county laws forming the legal basis of the project.
The Commission found that the County Assembly holds the records, including Hansard reports, committee minutes and reports, documents tabled before the Assembly and financial records.
It rejected the argument that records relating to Assembly proceedings could automatically be withheld.
“The Hansard reports and Committee records sought by the Applicant cannot be treated as categorically exempt merely by reason of their connection with the proceedings of the County Assembly,” the Commission said.
It added that where particular portions of records were legally exempt, the Assembly should redact those sections and release the remainder.
The Commission also noted that much of the information sought should have been disclosed proactively because it relates to public projects, contracts, decision-making and expenditure of public resources.
The rulings underscore the constitutional right of access to information under Article 35 and the obligation of public entities to respond to requests within the timelines prescribed by law.
The Ombudsman warned that failure to comply with its orders could result in a recommendation for the criminal prosecution of the County Secretary under Section 28 of the Access to Information Act.
The rulings also provide that a party dissatisfied with an order may appeal to the High Court within 21 days.
The Commission said access to information enables citizens to scrutinise public expenditure and decisions made by public authorities, describing it as fundamental to transparency, accountability and public confidence in governance.
