As Kenyans went to the streets on June 25 to commemorate the anniversary of last year’s deadly protests, the media stepped up to do its job: documenting the unfolding events. Across several regions in the country, many protesters came out to exercise their constitutionally protected right to peaceful demonstrations. Given the magnitude and significance of these events, several media outlets decided to air live broadcasts.
In these broadcasts, the voices of Kenyans from both sides were represented; those in support of the protests, as well as those opposed. Many Kenyans were anticipating massive protests and chose to remain indoors and stay updated through the news. In today’s digital landscape, there are many sources of information. And while this is a strength, it also means many of those unregulated sources may spread misinformation. That’s why broadcast journalism plays a uniquely vital role as it operates under legal, ethical, and peer-regulated frameworks designed to ensure accurate and responsible dissemination of news. As such, many Kenyans tuned in to the main stations for reliable updates.
It was therefore alarming when the Communications Authority of Kenya abruptly issued a directive instructing broadcasters to cease all live coverage of the protests. Shockingly, this was followed by a shutdown of three free-to-air transmissions: K24, NTV and KTN.
The justification? The CA alleged that the broadcasters were violating the law. The directive invoked Article 34(1) of the Constitution, which limits media freedom only where Article 33(2) is breached. This limitation applies if broadcasts entail propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech, or advocacy of hatred. The directive also cited Section 461 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act. But this is a provision intended to uphold fairness and responsibility in broadcasting, not to justify blanket censorship.
Interestingly, Articles 33(1), alongside Articles 34 through 39, provide robust protection for free expression, media freedom, access to information, peaceful assembly, and political participation. These are constitutional rights pertaining to both the protests and coverage by the media. The CA directive seemed to have brushed them aside.
More importantly, the courts have addressed this matter extensively, most notably in a landmark ruling in November 2024, where the High Court found that the CA’s earlier interference with television programming was unconstitutional, null, and void. The ruling affirmed that the regulation of content and journalistic standards is the legal preserve of the Media Council of Kenya, not the CA.
We’ve been here before. In 2018, during Raila Odinga’s symbolic swearing-in as the “people’s president,” the government took similar steps to suppress live coverage. In March 2023, six TV stations were censured for airing opposition protests. In both instances, and again in 2024, the courts ruled that prior restraint on the press is unconstitutional.
Media freedom is a cornerstone of democracy and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily, especially under vague terms like “public order,” which history shows are frequently abused to silence dissent.
Beyond the blatant illegality, the directive was dangerous. A sudden government-induced blackout is more likely to cause panic, erode public trust, and force audiences to rely on unregulated sources. It also sets a precedent for further repression and could lead to more extreme measures like internet shutdowns. Additionally, it puts lives at risk. When the cameras are switched off, the likelihood of abuse greatly increases. Public safety is enhanced by the transparency that live coverage enables.
Yes, some protests did turn chaotic, and the media, like every other institution, must constantly strive for balance, accuracy, and restraint. But that’s not a justification for blanket censorship. The CA’s sweeping ban, which appeared to echo Executive pressure, was not only tone-deaf but legally indefensible. To disregard court orders and constitutional guarantees so casually is not just reckless, it’s contemptuous of the rule of law. Accountability must start with those who hold power.
The CA’s attempt to gag the press failed, but it revealed just how fragile our media freedoms remain, even under a progressive Constitution. It also reminded us that courage matters.
To the government: the media is just a mirror. If you don’t like what you’re seeing, don’t smash the mirror. Address the real issues.
