{"id":138581,"date":"2026-04-22T07:03:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T07:03:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/explainer-what-section-28-of-the-access-to-information-act-means-in-the-kws-snakebite-data-dispute\/"},"modified":"2026-04-22T07:03:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T07:03:09","slug":"explainer-what-section-28-of-the-access-to-information-act-means-in-the-kws-snakebite-data-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/explainer-what-section-28-of-the-access-to-information-act-means-in-the-kws-snakebite-data-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Explainer: What Section 28 of the Access to Information Act means in the KWS snakebite data dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"

NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 22 \u2014 The ongoing dispute involving the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Office of the Ombudsman over snakebite-related death statistics brings Section 28 of the Access to Information Act, 2016 into sharp focus. <\/strong><\/p>\n

At its core, this provision defines when failures or wrongful acts linked to public information requests become criminal offences\u2014and the penalties attached.<\/p>\n

Why Section 28 is central to the KWS case<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In the current matter, the Commission on Administrative Justice has warned that failure by KWS to release requested data could trigger a recommendation for prosecution of its Director General. <\/p>\n

That warning is anchored in Section 28, which sets out offences related to non-compliance, obstruction, or misuse of access to information obligations.<\/p>\n

1. Criminal liability for wrongful refusal or concealment of information<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Section 28(1) provides that anyone who knowingly discloses exempt information unlawfully commits an offence. <\/p>\n

While this clause is often read in the context of improper disclosure, it also underscores the broader legal principle: handling of information under the Act is tightly regulated.<\/p>\n

However, in the KWS case, the more relevant concern is refusal or failure to disclose non-exempt public data\u2014such as statistical information on snakebite deaths.<\/p>\n

If a public officer deliberately obstructs access or mishandles a request in bad faith, other subsections come into play.<\/p>\n

\nKWS DG faces prosecution for access to information violations in snakebite data row<\/a>\n<\/div>\n

2. Penalties for obstructing access to information<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Section 28(3) directly targets information access officers who fail in their duties. Offences include:<\/p>\n

Refusing to accept or assist with a request<\/p>\n

Failing to respond within the prescribed time<\/p>\n

Failing to make information accessible, including for persons with disabilities<\/p>\n

Such conduct is punishable by a fine of up to KSh 50,000 or imprisonment of up to three months, or both.<\/p>\n

In the KWS case, repeated failure to respond to follow-up requests could fall within the broader pattern of non-compliance the Ombudsman is scrutinising.<\/p>\n

3. Failure to provide or correct public information<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Section 28(4) expands liability to include:<\/p>\n

Failure to respond to legitimate information requests<\/p>\n

Charging excessive fees<\/p>\n

Failure to correct inaccurate or outdated information<\/p>\n

Penalties here are more severe: up to Sh100,000 in fines or six months\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n

This is relevant in contexts where an agency holds information\u2014such as wildlife-related fatality data\u2014but fails to release or update it within reasonable timelines.<\/p>\n

4. Obstruction of oversight institutions<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Section 28(8) criminalises:<\/p>\n

Failure to comply with summons from the Commission<\/p>\n

Providing false or misleading information<\/p>\n

Obstructing proceedings<\/p>\n

Penalties rise to Sh300,000 or six months in jail.<\/p>\n

This is particularly significant because the Ombudsman relies on cooperation from public institutions during reviews. Non-response or evasive replies, as alleged in the KWS case, can escalate matters from administrative dispute to potential criminal liability.<\/p>\n

5. Good faith protection<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Importantly, Section 28(9) protects officials who act in good faith<\/em> under the law. This means:<\/p>\n

Honest mistakes in disclosure decisions<\/p>\n

Reasonable reliance on exemptions under the Act<\/p>\n

do not automatically attract criminal liability.<\/p>\n

This safeguard is designed to prevent fear-driven over-compliance by public officers.<\/p>\n

6. Why the Ombudsman\u2019s warning matters<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The Commission\u2019s warning that it may recommend prosecution does not itself convict anyone. Instead, it signals that:<\/p>\n

The refusal to provide snakebite death statistics may be viewed as unjustified under the Act<\/p>\n

Continued non-compliance could shift the matter from administrative review to criminal exposure<\/p>\n

In essence, Section 28 gives enforcement \u201cteeth\u201d to Kenya\u2019s access to information framework\u2014turning repeated or deliberate obstruction into a punishable offence.<\/p>\n

7. The bigger principle: transparency in public health data<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Beyond the legal dispute, the underlying issue is transparency. Data on snakebite deaths is considered public-interest information because it:<\/p>\n

Informs public health policy<\/p>\n

Guides antivenom distribution and procurement<\/p>\n

Supports parliamentary oversight<\/p>\n

Section 28 reinforces that withholding such information without lawful justification is not just an administrative lapse\u2014it may, in certain circumstances, carry criminal consequences.<\/p>\n

Bottom line<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In the KWS case, Section 28 of the Access to Information Act serves as the legal backbone for the Ombudsman\u2019s warning. <\/p>\n

While prosecution lies in the ODPP\u2019s dormain, the law clearly establishes that persistent refusal, obstruction, or bad-faith handling of information requests can move a public official from regulatory scrutiny into criminal liability territory.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

NAIROBI, Kenya, Apr 22 \u2014 The ongoing dispute involving the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Office of the Ombudsman over snakebite-related death statistics brings Section 28 of the Access to Information Act, 2016 into sharp focus. At its core, this provision defines when failures or wrongful acts linked to public information requests become criminal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chezaspin.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}