The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) has defended its controversial directive prohibiting television and radio stations from broadcasting the June 25, 2025 protests live.
In a substantive court filing, CA Director General David Mugonyi upheld the directive as lawful, justified, and necessary to pre-empt possible incitement to violence as well as safeguard national security.
Mugonyi conceded that the Constitution under Article 34(1) guarantees freedom and independence of the media. He argued, however, that the right is not absolute. He cited Article 33(2), which excludes incitement to violence, hate speech, and advocacy of hatred from constitutional protection, as the legal basis of the authority’s action.
“The directive was not a blanket ban on media coverage. It only applied to live coverage, which was being misused to incite violence and fuel public disorder,” Mugonyi submitted.
The CA boss lamented that broadcasters failed to turn on the required profanity delay systems. This failure, he added, led to the unrestricted transmission of graphic and inflammatory content during the protests.
Mugonyi clarified that the directive had not stopped media houses from covering the protests altogether but had only requested a temporary broadcast delay. This would allow editorial teams to filter and screen content before broadcasting.
“In a nutshell the directive merely required all broadcasters to activate the profanity delay mechanism. This does not mean that the Authority directed the broadcasters not-to-air the demonstrations rather they should not air the live coverage of the demonstrations,” Mugonyi elucidated.
In its argument before court, the Communications Authority listed several violent incidents during protests like the looting of Nairobi, Thika, and Nakuru, and the burning of the Kikuyu Law Courts and Kikuyu Police Station as proof that live coverage was fuelling anarchy.
Communications Authority Cites Global Precedents
CA also argued that its directive aligns with global standards, pointing out that traditional democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India allow for temporary broadcast bans in the event of civil unrest or national emergencies.
The CA cited Section 46 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act, which outlines the duties of licensed broadcasters. Mugonyi said they are supposed to encourage responsible programming, report news in an accurate and unbiased manner, and provide balanced views regarding contentious issues.
Represented by Koskei Mond Advocates LLP, the Authority argued that the directive was a proportionate and lawful response to an escalating situation. It added that petitioners who were against the action had not shown how their rights were infringed.
“The safety of Kenyans and the stability of the nation had to be prioritized,” said the Authority. “The directive was in line with both the Constitution and the law, and did not amount to censorship, but rather responsible regulation.”
The case will be heard on October 27 for directions before Justice Chacha Mwita.
In the meantime, the High Court has extended orders halting the directive to block television and radio stations from airing live coverage of the anti-government protests.
