NAIROBI, Kenya, Sep 1-The Commission on Administrative Justice is preparing to rule on a dispute over access to information concerning the proposed Siaya nuclear power project, as local communities demand greater transparency over the development.
The Commission popularly known as the Ombudsman, said Tuesday that it was finalising a ruling in a case brought by the Friends of Siaya Anti-Nuclear Plant (FSANP) against the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (NuPEA) after the group challenged the adequacy of information provided in response to a broad request on the proposed project.
The dispute comes amid growing concerns among residents and community groups over the project’s status, potential location, land acquisition and compensation, environmental impacts and nuclear safety.
The Ombudsman said the FSANP representatives raised concerns over access to information and meaningful public participation, as well as potential impacts on livelihoods and the Lake Victoria Basin.
They also sought information on environmental and social safeguards, emergency preparedness, radioactive waste management and the conduct of public agencies involved in the project.
The Commission stressed, however, that the concerns and allegations presented by the community representatives had not been established as facts.
“I wish to emphasise that these are concerns and allegations presented to the Commission by the representatives and no finding has been made on their veracity,” Chairperson Charles Dulo said.
The FSANP application followed an information request submitted to NuPEA in July concerning the proposed Siaya Nuclear Energy Project, which the group says is planned for Central Sakwa Ward in Bondo Sub-County, within the Lake Victoria Basin.
The request sought a wide range of documents, including strategic plans, site-selection records, technical and feasibility studies, environmental and social assessments, land acquisition and resettlement information, nuclear safety and emergency preparedness plans, radioactive waste management records, financing and procurement information, and documents relating to public participation.
NuPEA responded on August 20, addressing issues including site selection, land requirements, public participation, environmental assessment, nuclear safety, radioactive waste management, livelihoods and community benefits.
The agency indicated that potential sites had been identified through a multi-stage process and that some studies and processes were still ongoing.
It also provided a repository containing documents responsive to part of the information request.
FSANP subsequently filed an application for review with the Commission on August 24, alleging that some requested information had not been disclosed.
Among the documents the group says should have been made available are the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report, review comments by the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment and the KenGen Resettlement and Compensation Framework.
The group is seeking additional disclosure and the transfer of requests for information to other relevant public entities, as well as preservation of records and correction of what it considers defective responses.
It has also asked the Ombudsman to recommend that the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) refrain from further approvals or licences for the project pending compliance with information disclosure and public participation obligations.
The Commission said the application was lodged within the 30-day statutory period under the Access to Information Act and remains under consideration.
“As at August 31, only seven days had elapsed since the application was received,” the Commission said, adding that a ruling was being prepared.
Separate dispute involving Siaya County
The Ombudsman also clarified that a second access-to-information case concerning the nuclear project is separate from the FSANP dispute and involves the Western Kenya Social Justice Centres Working Group, on behalf of the Our Energy, Our Voice Campaign, and the Siaya County Government.
The group requested information from the county in March on the project’s status, consultations with national government agencies, environmental, social and technical studies, site suitability, risk assessments, emergency preparedness, public participation and land acquisition.
After the applicants complained that they had not received a response within the prescribed period, the Commission issued an Access to Information Notice to the county in May and later summoned the Siaya governor to appear before it.
The county responded in July, stating that it did not possess correspondence, agreements, minutes, reports, consultations or other records between it and national government agencies concerning the proposed nuclear plant.
The county also said it had not undertaken, commissioned or received environmental, social, economic, technical or feasibility studies relating to the project.
Following the response, the Commission notified the applicants of the county’s position and lifted the summons.
That matter is also awaiting finalisation and a ruling.
The Ombudsman cautioned against conflating the two cases, noting that one involves a substantive response by NuPEA to a broad information request, while the other concerns information sought from the Siaya County Government, which says it does not hold the requested records.
The Commission said each case would be determined independently based on the evidence and applicable law.
Residents demand answers
The disputes have emerged against a backdrop of heightened community anxiety over the proposed nuclear project, with residents seeking clarity on its scope, location and potential implications before implementation.
During a meeting with the FSANP Interim Coordinating Committee and other community members in Kisumu on Monday, the Ombudsman heard concerns about whether some community engagements were taking place before what residents considered formal and comprehensive public participation processes.
Residents also raised questions about possible land acquisition, valuation, compensation and resettlement, as well as the protection of livelihoods.
Environmental concerns centred on the potential impact on the Lake Victoria Basin, while nuclear safety concerns included risk assessments, emergency preparedness and radioactive waste management.
The community representatives also raised allegations of intimidation, harassment and criminalisation of people opposed to or expressing reservations about the project.
The Ombudsman said citizens have a constitutional right to express concerns, petition public institutions, participate in public affairs and seek access to information.
However, the Commission maintained that it would not take a position for or against the proposed nuclear plant.
“Our role is not to determine whether Kenya should have a nuclear power plant, whether Siaya should host one, or whether the technical merits of the project warrant implementation,” Dulo said.
The Commission said those questions fall under other institutions with specialised technical and regulatory mandates.
Its role, it said, is to ensure public institutions act lawfully, fairly, transparently and accountably and that citizens can exercise their constitutional and statutory rights.
The Ombudsman has encouraged FSANP and other affected communities to submit specific complaints and supporting evidence where they believe there has been maladministration, procedural impropriety, unreasonable delay, abuse of administrative power or violations of the right of access to information.
The Commission said it would continue monitoring administrative processes surrounding the project and remain accessible to communities as the development progresses.
“Citizens have a right to ask questions, a right to seek information, a right to participate and a right to fair administration,” Dulo said.
The Commission said public institutions, in turn, have a responsibility to listen, respond and account for how they exercise public power.
