Imagine this: You ace every stage of a recruitment process. Then, suddenly, the offer is yanked away. The reason? A mysterious “background check.” You ask for a copy. Silence. The job vanishes, and so does your chance to defend yourself.
This isn’t a hypothetical—it’s the story of many Kenyans. And the ODPC has made it clear: those silent refusals are unlawful.
The Nzula Case: Breaking the Culture of Silence
Nzula suspected that her former Sacco had sunk her next career move by sending a damaging reference. When she requested to see what was said about her, the Sacco refused.
The ODPC ruled that refusal a violation of Section 26(b) of the Data Protection Act, awarding her KES 250,000 in compensation for distress. Not because the content was unfair or false, but because she was denied the basic right to access her own personal data.
The Kisaka Case: Strengthening the Precedent
This echoes ODPC/COMP/0586/2023 (Harrison Kisaka v. Faulu Microfinance Bank). Kisaka lost a job offer after a background check flagged an old criminal case. When he demanded to see the report, the bank stonewalled him. The ODPC found this a direct breach of his rights, ordering the bank to release the report within 7 days.
The message? Even if the information is adverse, you cannot hide it from the data subject.
Why This Matters
- For Employers: The age of backdoor references is over. Any report, letter, or whisper you share about an employee must be accessible to them. If you can’t stand by it, don’t write it. Confidentiality is not a shield for accountability.
- For Employees: Access rights are your strongest defense. You cannot correct, contest, or contextualize what you are not allowed to see.
The Bigger Picture
Both Nzula’s case and Kisaka’s case confirm that background checks are lawful—but secrecy is not. The ODPC has signaled a seismic shift: workplace trust must be built on transparency, not shadows. Employers now carry a new burden—ensure every word you commit to paper can survive the sunlight of disclosure.