Access to Information Policy 2026: Ministry Transparency Directives, Gazette Notice 15992, State Records Classification
Information, Communications and Digital Economy Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo. (Photo: William Kabigo/X)
The push for greater government transparency has entered a new phase following the publication of the Access to Information Policy 2026 under Gazette Notice No. 15992 on October 9, 2026. The framework seeks to strengthen citizens’ ability to obtain public records, scrutinise government decisions and participate meaningfully in governance.
Its introduction comes at a critical time as questions about public spending, service delivery and accountability continue to shape national debate ahead of the 2027 General Election.
The policy, developed by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Digital Economy, aims to address persistent obstacles affecting access to official information. These include bureaucratic delays, secrecy, weak records management, limited resources and inadequate public awareness. The government’s challenge will be turning these commitments into practical changes that citizens can experience when seeking information from ministries, state agencies and county governments.
According to The Eastleigh Voice’s report on the new policy, the framework is intended to strengthen transparency, accountability and public participation. Its effectiveness will ultimately depend on implementation, institutional cooperation and whether public bodies consistently comply with their legal obligations.
Read Also: Pharmacy Board Looks to Shape Future of Pharmaceutical Practice
Gazette Notice 15992: What the Policy Means
The Access to Information Policy 2026 builds on Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, which protects citizens’ right to access information held by the State. The constitutional provision also recognises access to information held by another person where the information is required for exercising or protecting a fundamental right or freedom.
The Access to Information Act, 2016 provides the legal framework for exercising this right. It establishes procedures for requesting information, outlines circumstances in which disclosure may be restricted and provides mechanisms for challenging unlawful refusals.
The new policy seeks to strengthen the implementation of these existing protections rather than replace the legislation. Its reach is important because public information is held across national ministries, departments, commissions, state corporations and county administrations.
Records concerning public expenditure, procurement, development projects, service delivery and administrative decisions can help citizens understand how public institutions operate. Access to such information also enables journalists, researchers and civil society organisations to investigate matters of public interest.
However, the right to information is not unlimited. The law recognises exemptions covering certain categories of information, including material whose disclosure could legitimately harm protected interests. Public bodies must therefore balance transparency with lawful restrictions, privacy protections and other applicable legal obligations.
Bureaucratic Delays and the Push for Better Records Management
One of the most persistent barriers to government transparency is the difficulty of obtaining records within a reasonable period. Requests may be delayed because documents are poorly organised, information is distributed across departments or officials fail to communicate clearly with applicants.
The Access to Information Policy 2026 seeks to address these challenges by strengthening records management and improving the handling of requests. Better digital systems could make it easier for government agencies to preserve documents, retrieve records and respond to applicants without unnecessary administrative delays.
Read Also: Top Comoros Official Hospitalized in Nairobi Amid Rising Tensions in Moroni
A centralised digital archive approach could also improve access to historical government documents, provided that the systems are secure, searchable and properly maintained. Digitisation alone, however, cannot solve institutional secrecy or poor administrative practices. Public bodies must also establish clear responsibilities, train information officers and ensure that records remain accurate and accessible.
The Access to Information (General) Regulations, 2023 provide further procedures for processing requests, handling missing records and transferring applications between information holders.
These requirements matter because a request should not become a prolonged administrative exercise simply because the relevant document is held by another department. Effective coordination is essential if the government is to translate its transparency commitments into reliable public services.
Statutory Deadlines and Citizens’ Right to Information
The existing law establishes specific timelines for responding to information requests. Under Section 9 of the Access to Information Act, public officers must make a decision as soon as possible and, ordinarily, within 21 days of receiving an application.
Requests concerning the life or liberty of a person receive more urgent treatment, with the Act providing for a response within 48 hours, subject to the applicable statutory provisions.
The law also allows an information access officer to transfer a request to another public entity when that institution holds the requested information. Under Section 10, the transfer must be made within five days, and the applicant must be informed within the prescribed period.
Importantly, a failure to respond within the statutory period is treated as a rejection under Section 9(6). Applicants are not required to wait indefinitely for an institution to acknowledge their request.
These deadlines provide a legal foundation for accountability. The policy’s practical test will be whether public institutions develop systems that make compliance routine rather than exceptional.
Administrative Accountability and Penalties for Non-Compliance
The Access to Information Act contains enforcement provisions intended to discourage obstruction and protect the right to information. Section 28 identifies offences and penalties for specified violations, including certain failures by information access officers.
An information access officer who refuses to accept a request, fails to respond within the prescribed period or commits other specified violations may, upon conviction, face a fine of up to KSh 50,000, imprisonment for up to three months, or both.
The Act also provides a penalty of up to KSh 1 million, imprisonment for up to three years, or both for knowingly disclosing exempt information unlawfully. These provisions must be understood in their proper legal context: they are existing statutory penalties, not automatically new fines introduced by Gazette Notice No. 15992.
The Commission on Administrative Justice, commonly known as the Office of the Ombudsman, plays a central role in overseeing implementation of access-to-information law. Its responsibilities include investigating complaints and taking action where the law has been infringed.
Effective enforcement will require more than publishing regulations. Institutions must document requests, monitor response times, report compliance and address repeated administrative failures. Citizens must also know where to seek assistance when their requests are ignored or improperly rejected.
Public Participation Ahead of the 2027 General Election
Access to information is closely connected to public participation. Citizens cannot make informed contributions to policy discussions if essential documents, project details and relevant government decisions remain difficult to obtain.
Ahead of the 2027 General Election, access to reliable public records could become particularly important in debates about development spending, infrastructure projects, public services and government performance. Journalists and civic organisations can use official records to assess claims, compare commitments with implementation and explain public policy to voters.
The policy also has implications for county governance. Residents seeking information about local budgets, procurement, development programmes or public participation proceedings need accessible channels through which to obtain relevant records.
The Open Government Partnership’s work on Kenya’s access-to-information commitments highlights the relationship between transparency, inclusive participation and public accountability.
Still, access to documents does not automatically produce meaningful public participation. Government institutions must publish information in understandable formats, give people reasonable opportunities to engage and demonstrate how public feedback influences decisions.
Digital platforms can improve access, but offline channels remain important for communities with limited internet connectivity or digital literacy. Transparency measures should therefore accommodate different needs rather than assume every citizen can navigate online government systems.
Implementation Will Determine the Policy’s Success
The Access to Information Policy 2026 represents an important opportunity to strengthen public accountability, improve records management and make government more responsive to citizens.
Its success will depend on whether ministries, state agencies and county governments adopt practical procedures, maintain reliable records and respect statutory response deadlines. The Office of the Ombudsman will remain important in monitoring compliance and providing a route for complaints.
Public awareness will also matter. Citizens need to understand how to submit requests, identify the information they require and challenge decisions that appear inconsistent with the law.
Read Also: KNEC Grade 10 Assessment 2026: Guidelines, Timelines & School Requirements
Kenya’s transparency framework already establishes a constitutional right, statutory procedures and enforcement mechanisms. The new policy must now help close the gap between those protections and the everyday experience of people seeking information.
Ultimately, Gazette Notice No. 15992 will be judged not by the strength of its promises but by the openness of public institutions, the reliability of their records and the ability of citizens to hold government accountable through access to information.
