By Martin Masai
A directive requiring county staff in Makueni County to take an oath of secrecy has ignited a debate about transparency, public accountability and constitutional rights within devolved government.
The order, issued on March 3, 2026 by Mr. Daniel Ndolo, the Chief Officer for Devolution, Public Participation, County Administration and Special Programmes, directs departmental staff across all sub-counties to appear before administrators and formally swear an oath of secrecy.
According to Ndolo’s order, the move is intended “to strengthen the handling and protection of Government Communication and information by all officers through safeguarding Government information, ensuring confidentiality and promoting compliance with applicable legal and policy frameworks.
The schedule provided in the directive lists sessions in all six sub-counties — Makueni, Kaiti, Mbooni, Kibwezi West, Kibwezi East and Kilome — between March 5 and March 11.
While the county government frames the requirement as a measure to protect official information, critics argue that it risks undermining constitutional guarantees of openness and access to information in public institutions.
Contacted Governor Mutula Kilonzo Jr confirmed the move and said ” We discovered that officers did not take oath of secrecy as required by public officers and ethics Act The new(County Public Service)board came up with these guidelines”.
Among those raising concern is former Kenya Medical Training College chairman and gubernatorial aspirant Prof. Philip Kaloki, who has publicly questioned the necessity and implications of the directive.
Kaloki argues that compelling county employees to take a secrecy oath amounts to institutional censorship that contradicts the principles of transparency and accountability expected in public service.“Suppressing truth invites waste and shields failure,” he said in a statement responding to the directive.
The controversy centers largely on the interpretation of Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya, which guarantees citizens the right to access information held by the state and requires public bodies to publish and publicize information affecting the nation.
Legal analysts say the provision was designed specifically to break the culture of secrecy that dominated Kenya’s public administration before the 2010 Constitution.In addition, Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya identifies transparency, accountability and public participation as core national values binding all state organs and public officers.Critics of the Makueni directive argue that requiring employees to swear secrecy could discourage whistleblowing, restrict the flow of information to the public, and potentially conflict with obligations under the Access to Information Act, 2016.
They warn that such measures may create a chilling effect within the public service, where officers become reluctant to disclose information even when it is legally required or in the public interest.
However, governance experts note that confidentiality obligations are not entirely unusual within government institutions.
Public officers are often bound by professional codes and administrative regulations requiring them to protect classified or sensitive information, including personal data, procurement processes and internal deliberations.In that context, they say, an oath of secrecy could be interpreted as a formal reaffirmation of existing responsibilities rather than an attempt to conceal wrongdoing.
The political dimension of the debate has also quickly surfaced.Kaloki directly challenged the administration of Governor Mutula Kilonzo Jr to account for how resources allocated to the county have been used.
He questioned what the county government might be attempting to shield from scrutiny and argued that the directive sends the wrong message about governance priorities.“Governor Mutula Kilonzo Jr must account for the nearly Sh50 billion entrusted to Makueni. Where is the visible change?” he said.Kaloki added that if elected governor in 2027, he would revoke the secrecy requirement immediately, saying the county “needs performance, not paranoia.”The controversy arrives at a time when debates about transparency and accountability in devolved units have intensified across the country.Since the establishment of counties in 2013, billions of shillings have been transferred annually from the national government to local administrations, raising expectations among citizens for improved service delivery and more participatory governance.Transparency advocates argue that devolution was meant not only to decentralize resources but also to bring government closer to citizens through open decision-making and accessible information.For that reason, they say, policies that appear to limit information flow risk eroding public trust.Supporters of the Makueni administration, however, say the directive should not be interpreted as an attack on transparency without examining its legal and administrative context.They argue that safeguarding government communication and internal documentation is a legitimate concern in modern public administration, particularly in an era of digital information leaks and political contestation.Whether the directive ultimately strengthens institutional discipline or fuels perceptions of secrecy may depend on how it is implemented — and whether the county government clarifies the boundaries between legitimate confidentiality and the public’s constitutional right to know.
The order places the spotlight on a fundamental tension within Kenya’s governance system: how to protect sensitive government information while still honoring the constitutional promise of open, accountable and participatory government.
Stay Anchored