By Kihanya JN, LLB, LLM
The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) has released a detailed response on the Universal Service Fund (USF), marking a notable step toward transparency. The document outlines the Fund’s statutory basis, governance framework, project selection criteria, and includes financial and geographic data. For the first time, the public has access to structured tables showing project phases, counties covered, costs allocated, and target beneficiaries.
From the standpoint of the Access to Information Act (Cap. 7M) and the USF Strategic Plan, this disclosure is commendable. It goes beyond a high-level overview and attempts to present the Fund’s architecture in a structured format. However, accountability demands more than information. It requires that disclosures be timely, accurate, and actionable.
This analysis evaluates the CA’s response across three key dimensions:
1. Frequency of Disclosure
2. Accuracy of Data
3. Usefulness for Accountability
Frequency of Disclosure
The Access to Information Act mandates proactive publication. Section 5 requires public entities to disclose relevant facts when formulating policies or initiating projects, and to publish contract details, including scope, value, and timelines.
Sections 5 of the Act states for instance that:
…A public entity shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public, and before initiating any project, or formulating any policy, scheme, programme or law, publish or communicate to the public in general or to the persons likely to be affected thereby in particular, the facts available to it or to which it has reasonable access which in its opinion should be known to them in the best interests of natural justice and promotion of democratic principles;(d)provide to any person the reasons for any decision taken by it in relation to that person;(e)upon signing any contract, publish on its website or through other suitable media the following particulars in respect of the contract entered into—(i)the public works, goods acquired or rented, and the contracted service, including any sketches, scopes of service and terms of reference;(ii)the contract sum;(iii)the name of the service provider, contractor or individual to whom the contract has been granted; and(iv)the periods within which the contract shall be completed.(2)Information shall be disseminated taking into consideration the need to reach persons with disabilities, the cost, local language, the most effective method of communication in that local area, and the information shall be easily accessible and available free or at cost taking into account the medium used.(3)At a minimum, the material referred to in subsection (1) shall be made available—(a)for inspection by any person without charge;(b)by supplying a copy to any person on request for which a reasonable charge to cover the costs of copying and supplying them may be made; and(c)on the internet, provided that the materials are held by the authority in electronic form.
While the CA’s July 2025 response provides granular data on voice infrastructure, fibre backbone, broadcast systems, and digitisation efforts, it was released reactively via a list-serve request. There is no evidence of quarterly updates on the CA’s website or a public dashboard for real-time tracking.
Verdict
The disclosure is a positive step, but it is episodic rather than systematic. For compliance with the Access to Information Act, frequency must shift from reactive releases to proactive, predictable reporting.
Accuracy of Data
Accuracy requires precision, currency, and verifiability. The Strategic Plan calls for linking investments to measurable outputs and outcomes.
The CA excels in financial and geographic reporting. Each rollout phase includes cost allocations, counties, and sub-locations. The fibre backbone is detailed in kilometres and institutions connected. Annex 1 offers a county-by-county breakdown of 541 completed sites under the Digital Superhighway Project.
However, outcome data is vague. Beneficiary figures are rounded estimates (e.g., 288,170; 404,344) with no methodology disclosed. Progress percentages are missing for most projects, and audit references lack summaries or attachments.
Verdict:
Financial and locational data are strong. Outcome data and progress reporting are less precise, reducing the accuracy needed for accountability.
Usefulness for Accountability
Effective disclosure should empower oversight enabling fund tracing, delivery verification, and impact evaluation.
The CA’s annex allows communities to verify project inclusion. References to competitive tendering and milestone-based disbursements suggest procurement safeguards. However, critical details are missing: contractor identities, payment amounts, penalties for delays, and service uptake data.
The key question for underserved communities is not whether infrastructure exists, but whether it delivers affordable, reliable connectivity. On this, the response is silent.
Verdict
The response is informative and a meaningful advance in transparency, but it does not yet enable full accountability. It points to where funds are going, not whether outcomes have been achieved.
Reaching End-User Communities
The legal and technical disclosures must reach the intended beneficiaries. A PDF shared on a Nairobi list-serve does not inform farmers in Turkana, learners with print disabilities, or residents in Wajir awaiting mobile coverage.
Currently, communities rely on civil society intermediaries for updates—an indirect and inadequate model. The Access to Information Act envisions direct, inclusive public communication.
Best Practices for Inclusive Disclosure
To align with legal obligations and strategic goals, the CA should adopt the following:
- Interactive Dashboards – Show project details, costs, contractors, beneficiaries, and progress. Update quarterly.
- Geospatial Mapping – Visualize coverage down to sub-location level.
- Audit Publication – Summarize and publish audit findings.
- Community Notice Boards – Display project info in Kiswahili and local languages.
- Radio & SMS Alerts – Notify communities when infrastructure goes live.
- Open Data Format – Share raw datasets (CSV/JSON) for public use.
- Regulatory Framework – Strengthen subsidiary regulations under the Access to Information Act.
These measures would transform disclosure from elite and episodic to inclusive, routine, and verifiable.
Conclusion
The CA’s response reflects a growing commitment to transparency. It provides real data on financial allocations and geographic reach. Yet, under the Access to Information Act and the USF Strategic Plan, the disclosure remains transitional. To achieve full accountability, the Authority must institutionalize proactive, precise, and inclusive reporting; ensuring that development data reaches the people it’s meant to serve.