The recent High Court ruling that public interest supercedes private interest, where public servants seek to evade ‘the camera’, presented a bold move taken by the Kenyan bench to defend media practice.
Explaining the case where Governor Johnson Sakaja sought the gagging of Nation Media Group, Justice Nixon Sifuna stated that the court could not grant orders where the applicant was speculating, or was afraid of possible publication, hence seeking an injunction out of abundance of caution.
The Nation newspaper in the story published on September 30, 2025 titled, ‘Court blow to Sakaja in bid to gag NMG reporting on goons,’ wrote that Sakaja wanted the orders to specifically stop the media house from publishing, broadcasting, printing or disseminating any stories, or news items against him, in relation to organising, planning, and funding of criminal goons who appeared during the protests.
Governor Sakaja had wanted the court to stop his coverage by NMG, having sued the media house in June 2025, after it published a story titled, ‘How chaos was planned,’ which touched on protesters’ attack during June 17, 2025 protests.
However, NMG maintained that its reporting was based on verified sources. Referring to Article 34 on media freedom, Justice Sifuna explained, press freedom was among the constitutional pillars that guarantee the media’s right to report, and the public right to know what is happening around them.
The court stated that pre-trial injunctions against mainstream media platforms ought to be issued very sparingly and only in exceptional and most deserving circumstances.
If dished out in a wanting, reckless, and cavalier fashion, pre-trial injunctions have the effect of stifling media freedom, which would cut back gains made promoting afree press. Therefore, courts should also tread carefully, and intervene only in the most justified, most compelling, and most deserving circumstances.
The ruling followed similar press freedom cases in the past, where courts have protected the media’s right to report on corruption allegations against top public officers.
Article 34 on media freedom stipulates that the state shall not exercise control over or interfere with any person engaged in broadcasting, the production or circulation of any publication or the dissemination of information by any medium. The state shall not penalise any person for any opinion, view, or the content of any broadcast, publication or dissemination.
