Energy PS Alex Wachira risks contempt of court jail term, withholding information on power projects in Marsabit
Wachira had been given 30 days by the High Court to make the disclosure in an order issued on April 10, 2025 but declined to comply prompting a businessman who had sought the details
Energy Principal Secretary Alex Kamau Wachira risk serving a civil jail term after he was cited for contempt of court for disobeying a court order to disclose information on power projects in Marsabit county.
Wachira had been given 30 days by the High Court to make the disclosure in an order issued on April 10, 2025 but declined to comply prompting a businessman who had sought the details.
James Gitau, the proprietor of Gitson Energy returned to the court on June 6, 2025 to cite the PS for contempt after he failed to comply with the orders to furnish him with the sought details.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye directed the applicant to serve the PS with the contempt of court application before close of business today (June 11, 2025) before the matter is mentioned on June 18, 2025 when the jail term is expected to be pronounced if the PS does not act to save himself.
“The applicant (Gitau) shall serve its contempt of court application dated June 6, 2025 by close of business on June 11, 2025 and file an affidavit of service in that regard,” Justice Mwamuye directed.
The orders that the PS has declined to comply had issued as sought by Gitau, who wants the Ministry of Energy to make the public, details of all energy sector investments within the Marsabit county.
The businessman had written to the Ministry on December 31, 2021 seeking the information concerning all approved power projects in the county in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution on access to information held by government institutions.
Gitau involved the Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ) which did not also succeed in getting the information.
The CAJ had written to the Ministry of Energy on October 12, 2023 requiring them to provide complete and accurate information on the energy projects as sought by the petitioner, but it took two years for the applicant to get the same. The applicant got a response on March 28, 2024.
“The (PS) shall, within 30 days from the date thereof, comply fully with this decree by supplying the applicant (Gitau) with a certified and accurate list of all approved power projects in Marsabit county as of December 31, 2021. The said information must clearly indicate project names, capacity, approval dates, current status and project details as requested,” Justice Mwamuye ordered on April 10.
The PS had furnished information to the petitioner early last year but Justice Mwamuye noted that the petitioner had raised credible and specific claims regarding significant inaccuracies, omissions, and discrepancies within the data provided in the response.
Justice Mwamuye also pointed out that the claims by the petitioner were neither denied nor satisfactorily explained by the PS or the Ministry, leaving substantial doubts about the accuracy and completeness of the provided information.
The judge said the provision of incomplete or incorrect information constitutes effective non-compliance, “as Article 35 (of the constitution) demands that the information must be truthful and reflective of state records”.
“The belated nature of the provided information – more than two years after the initial request – seriously compromised the applicant’s constitutional right. Timely disclosure is crucial to the meaningful exercise of the right to information,” ruled Mwamuye.
“A delay of this magnitude not only undermines accountability but also significantly erodes public confidence in government transparency. Such extended and unexplained delay inherently violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 35, as reiterated in established jurisprudence.”
The judge said the PS was obligated to give the contested information within 21 days upon receiving the request which they confirmed receiving on January 11, 2022, and the records therefore indicate did not adhere constitutional timelines, failing to give a response or justification for the delay thereby infringing on the timeliness aspect of the applicant’s constitutional right.
