Media Complaints Commission issues a determination on mcc/05/2021 Article 48 Initiative versus Standard Group PLC
The MCK Complaints Commission, on September 1, 2022, rendered a determination on a complaint filed by Ms Felicia Mburu, director Article 48 Initiative, against Standard Group PLC over violation of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya.
Article 48 complained about the contents of two articles published on of September 22, 2021 by The Standard newspaper.
The first article was titled, ‘Inmates held at the president’s pleasure suffer dose of injustice’, while the second was run with the title, ‘Police still follow colonial rule book when dealing with mentally ill suspects’. These were construed to be in violation of Clause 2 and 14 on accuracy, fairness and privacy as espoused in the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism.
In their testimony, the complainant stated that the articles were based on inaccuracies and that they perpetuated stereotypes against persons with disability as well as publishing of personal and health information; family circumstances of persons with disability without consent; false information on property rights; and court material without verification of facts and information about on-going cases which are not open to the public.
Consequently, the complainant sought several reliefs among them being: An apology, correction and withdrawal of the two articles from all the media house’s platforms and payment of damages for family members mentioned in the articles without their consent pursuant to Section 38 (1) and (2) of the Media Council Act of 2013.
The Standard Group maintained that the articles published were fair information on public interest grounds and that they were accurate reports of documents that were publicly available. They proceeded to urge the Commission to dismiss the complaint as there was no discernible violation of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya.
After listening to both parties, the Media Complaints Commission established that there was no violation of the Code of Conduct and the stories published were of public interest, which underscores the moral authority of journalism to ask hard questions, hence resolving that the remedy of an apology, correction, and withdrawal of all the articles from all platforms could not accrue.
The Commission further in addressing the issue of payment of damages for family members mentioned without their consent stated it had no power, as stipulated under section 38 of the Media Council Act 2013, or the jurisdiction to entertain a claim of reputational harm or make damage awards thereof. It as such declined to impose any fine.
In conclusion, the Commission submitted that any party aggrieved by the decision issued could apply for a review pursuant to Section 42 (2) of the Media Council Act 2013.
