The veil of secrecy shrouding the leasing of Kenya’s state-owned sugar mills has been pierced by a stern ultimatum from the Office of the Ombudsman. In a directive that raises the stakes for the Ministry of Agriculture, Principal Secretary Kiprono Ronoh has been ordered to release critical leasing records within 21 days or risk imprisonment.

At the heart of this confrontation is the public’s right to know who is taking control of the nation’s strategic assets. For the thousands of farmers in Western Kenya whose livelihoods depend on the cane delivered to Muhoroni, Nzoia, Chemelil, and Sony Sugar, this disclosure is not just bureaucratic procedure—it is a matter of economic survival.

A Demand for Answers

The directive, issued on Monday, stems from a complaint filed by a citizen identified only as “Mr AO.” The petitioner had sought access to these documents on July 29, 2025, but was met with silence from Kilimo House. The Ombudsman’s intervention now compels the Ministry to adhere to the Access to Information Act, stripping away the opacity that has often plagued the privatization of state entities.

Specifically, the Commission has demanded the immediate release of:

• The official letters of award issued to the successful bidders.
• The complete lease agreements governing the takeover.
• The specific selection criteria used to handpick the private companies now running the four millers.

Legal Consequences

The Commission’s notice was unequivocal regarding the consequences of continued defiance. Citing Section 28 of the Access to Information Act, the Ombudsman warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation for criminal prosecution. This provision places personal liability on public officers who willfully deny citizens access to public records.

However, the Commission acknowledged the need to balance transparency with commercial sensitivity. The Ombudsman noted that while the PS must comply, he is permitted to provide redacted versions of the documents to protect proprietary information, as allowed under Section 6(1) of the Act.

“The information requested may contain elements subject to limitations... Therefore, a redacted version will suffice,” the Commission stated, leaving the Ministry with no room to claim total confidentiality as a defense.