Preparedness of the public sector for the implementation of the access to information act (2016) in Kenya.

Abstract

Access to public information impacts on all spheres of human development. That is, economic, political, social, cultural among others. Access to information laws seek to facilitate citizen access to public information. This is premised on the understanding that public information is collected and collated using public resources. In essence, public information belongs to citizens with the government only playing a custodial role. As such, enactment and effective implementation of ATI laws enables citizens to participate in public policy formulation, decision-making and delivery of public services thus fostering good governance. This study sought to investigate the capacity of public bodies in Kenya to implement the Access to Information (ATI) Act 2016 with a view to providing an implementation roadmap. The study sought to address the following research questions: What is the extent of leadership and political will for institutionalization and implementation of the ATI regime in Kenya? What is the level of awareness of duty bearers of their ATI responsibilities as stipulated in the Act? What systems, processes and structures are in place in public bodies for the implementation of the ATI Act 2016? What is the current records management regime and its impact on the implementation of the ATI Act and What recommendations for improvement can be made from the areas of strengths or weaknesses identified? A complement of theoretical models and concept underpinned the study thus facilitating the understanding of the multifaceted phenomenon of access to information. These were the United Kingdom (UK), Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA), Model Action Plan (MAP) 2003; the Carter Centre’s, Access to Information (ATI), Implementation Assessment Tool (IAT); the concept of ‘Meaningful engagement’ and the records continuum model. Literature was reviewed based on the themes generated from the research questions, the supporting models and broader areas of the study. The study adopted a pragmatic paradigm using a mixed methods approach that had a bias towards a quantitative dominant, complemented by a qualitative follow up and triangulation during data collection. Survey research design was used to collect data using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, observation checklists and document review. Participants in this study included Public Communication Officers; Records managers; Registry clerks; the Ombudsman; Director of Public Communication; Director of Administration in ministries/department and the Director National Archives. A census approach was adopted with all the 22 ministries that make up the public sector in Kenya being surveyed. Reliability and validity of the instruments was determined through triangulation, peer debriefing, member checking and Cronbach alpha. Quantitative data was coded and analysed through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and presented in form of tables, graphs and figures where applicable. On the other hand, qualitative data was analysed thematically and presented through narrative description. The findings of the study revealed that Kenya’s leadership had taken certain actions that demonstrated preparedness and willingness to implement the ATI Act 2016. However, more needs to be done to spearhead the ATI agenda. In particular, the crafting of a legislative framework that supports openness; committing funds to actualize ATI programmes; formulating an ATI policy framework and deployment of trained personnel to handle ATI requests. Further, the study established that government ministries had only undertaken short-term preparations to create awareness among public officers on their ATI responsibilities as stipulated in the Act. However, long-term measures that would entrench a culture of openness among public officers were yet to be undertaken. These include: formulation of an ATI training framework; prioritizing ATI capacity building across the public service and rallying senior officers to spearhead the openness agenda. In relation to the systems, processes and structures in place for ATI implementation, the study revealed that government ministries had put in place informal mechanisms to facilitate handling of ATI requests. In particular, although the Ombudsman had issued instructions to public entities on handling of ATI requests, these instructions were not anchored on an elaborate legal framework thus prone to litigation. Lastly, the study revealed that the existing records management regime largely facilitated the implementation of the ATI Act 2016. However, the study noted that more needed to be done to harmonize the ATI legislation and the Public Archives Act; provide adequate and appropriate records storage space; develop systems and standards for e-records management and build capacity for e-records management. The study therefore concluded that government ministries in Kenya had only undertaken short-term measures towards implementation of the ATI Act 2016. In line with its purpose, the study proposed a raft of long-term measures that would ensure effective implementation of the ATI Act 2016.