Court Orders Disclosure of SGR Contracts, Upholds Right to Access Public Information
Share
The Court of Appeal in Mombasa has dismissed an appeal filed by the Attorney General, upholding a High Court ruling that ordered the government to disclose key documents related to the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) project.
According to a notice dated May 18, Justices Murgor, Laibuta, and Ngenye reaffirmed the High Court’s decision requiring the government to release information on the financing, procurement, construction, and management of the SGR project, stating that the refusal to disclose the documents was unlawful.
“The Court of Appeal at Mombasa, constituted by Justices Murgor, Laibuta, and Ngenye, has dismissed Civil Appeal No. E085 of 2022 filed by the Attorney General against Mr. Khelef Khalifa and Ms. Wanjiru Gikonyo, thereby affirming the High Court’s landmark judgment (Mativo, J.) delivered on 13 May 2022 in Constitutional Petition No. E032 of 2021,” read part of the notice.
The court argued that access to information held by the State is a constitutional right under Article 35 and can only be limited under strict and justifiable conditions.
Govt Ordered to Release Information on SGR Project
The Attorney General had argued that releasing the documents would compromise national security, harm diplomatic relations, and breach confidentiality agreements tied to the Kenya–China deal.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, stating that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify withholding the records.
Justice Murgor, Laibuta, and Ngenye, noted that general claims of secrecy and national interest cannot be used to block access to information without clear and specific proof of harm.
The court further highlighted that the SGR project was funded through more than USD 4.5 billion in public funds and loans guaranteed by Kenyan taxpayers.
“The petitioners contended that, despite the project costing more than USD 4.5 billion in public funds and loans guaranteed by Kenyan taxpayers, critical project documents remained inaccessible to the public,”
Therefore, it ruled that public interest in accountability and transparency outweighs confidentiality clauses in contracts, especially where public money is involved.
Court Upholds Right to Access Public Information
In its judgment, the court stated that citizens are not required to explain why they are requesting public information, affirming the “motive-blind” principle under access to information laws.
It also noted that government institutions hold information as custodians on behalf of the public, not as private owners.
Also Read: Naivasha–Kisumu–Malaba SGR: Full Route, Stations and What to Expect
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the Attorney General’s appeal and dismissed it in its entirety, upholding the High Court’s orders for disclosure.
Each party was directed to bear its own costs, given the public interest nature of the case.
“Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the Attorney General’s appeal and dismissed it in its entirety, upholding the High Court’s finding that the refusal to disclose the SGR documents violated Articles 10, 35, and 47 of the Constitution,” read the notice.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates
A court hammer to signify the judgement of a judge
PHOTO/ODPP
You Might also Like
