The High Court in Nairobi quashed a directive by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) that ordered all television and radio stations to stop broadcasting live coverage of ongoing demonstrations on June 25, ruling that the move was unconstitutional, illegal, and procedurally unfair.
In a judgment delivered by Justice John Chigiti, the court held that the CA violated constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom when it issued the June 25, directive warning broadcasters against airing real-time protest footage.
Justice Chigiti said the court had examined the arguments from all parties, the rights involved and the requirements of Article 24 of the Constitution on the limitation of rights.
He also reviewed the provisions of the Fair Administrative Action Act and found that the CA had acted without due process.
“What the court has done is to look at your respective cases, the arguments advanced by both sides, the submissions and the rights involved,” Justice Chigiti said.
“I delved into the Fair Administrative Action Act around questions of due process and the rules of natural justice. I also looked at the powers of the respondents and balanced that with article 47.
He said that the directive was not a one-off event but part of an ongoing process.
As a result, the court issued an order of certiorari, quashing the CA’s June 25, directive, and an order of prohibition, stopping the Authority from enforcing the memo referenced CA/CE/BC/TV/90.
No orders were made as to costs.
“The best thing is to just quash the directive, so that then the respondents, can then, in the future, be able to issue directives which are driven by fair administrative structures, so that then the directives are then achieving the democratic values that we have gained,” said Chigiti.
The petition was filed by Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), who argued that the directive violated Articles 33, 34, 35 and 37 of the Constitution and amounted to an attempt to gag the media during nationwide demonstrations.
The applicants also relied on previous court decisions including Republic v Chiloba, Director General CA (2023) and Kenya Union of Journalists v CAK (2024) in which the High Court held that the CA lacked powers to regulate media content and had acted illegally when sanctioning broadcasters.
They warned that restricting live coverage would have a chilling effect on media freedom, undermine public oversight of police operations, and expose demonstrators to abuse.
The media bodies the Kenya Union of Journalists, Kenya Editors Guild and the East Africa Editors Society were named as interested parties.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@Kahawatungu.com — this is our only official communication channel
