We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Cases Kariuki v. Attorney General

Kariuki v. Attorney General

last modified Aug 21, 2012 01:38 PM

Case number:
Petition no. 403 of 2006
Country:
Kenya
Date of decision:
8 July 2011
Court / Arbiter:
High Court of Kenya ( First instance )

Relevant law :

Decision:

The salaries and allowances of the Armed Forces personnel are not private or confidential and must be disclosed to the requester and the Court.


Keywords:
Constitution
Income and assets
Open government principles (including accountability, anti-corruption, democracy, participation in government, transparency)
Personal information (including personnel files, other records concerning or held by public servants)
Privacy (harm to private interests, including life, health, safety)
Security sector (including intelligence bodies, military, police)

Case details:

Facts

Peter Kariuki, a former Commander of the Kenyan Air Force, was relieved of his duties, arrested, detained, and eventually tried and convicted after a 1982 attempted coup. He brought a suit to challenge the conditions of his detention as violating his fundamental rights. In connection with this legal challenge, Mr. Kariuki sought from the Department of Defense employment records, payment vouchers, and current salary records for officers of similar rank. The Court ordered the Department of Defense to produce the information, but the Department of Defense refused, asserting that salaries and allowances of Armed Forces personnel are confidential and personal (p. 11).

Decision

The Court ruled that the Defense Forces are subject to the Constitution, pursuant to Articles 3 and 10. Article 10 stipulates transparency and accountability as among the national values binding all state organs. The Court further ruled that Article 35, on the right to information, grants Mr. Kariuki the right of access to the information requested from the Department of Defense. The Court thus rejected the Attorney General’s assertion that defense salary and allowance information is confidential, and compelled the Department of Defense to provide this information to the Commander and to the court. The Court stated that “records regarding salaries and benefits payable to public officers cannot be classified as private or confidential.” The Court recognized as relevant that the underlying case related to serious alleged violations of constitutional rights (pp. 14-15).

Resources:

Judgment of the Court.