Why court ruled CA had no power to stop live broadcast during protests

The High Court has quashed the Communications Authority of Kenya’s demand for television stations to switch off live broadcasts during protests.

While terming CA’s decision during the Gen Z demonstrations illegal, overbroad, and draconian, Justice John Chigiti quashed the communication issued to media houses by Director General David Mugonyi in June this year.

“The application has merit, as a result of which I issue orders as follows: an order bringing to this court, quashing the decision of the Communications Authority dated June 25, 2025. An order of prohibition is issued barring the respondent from implementing the decision dated June 25, 2025,” ruled Justice Chigiti.

In the case, Katiba Institute argued that CA had no powers to scrutinise or regulate media conduct. Its lawyer, Joshua Malidzo, stated that any unethical conduct by the media ought to be adjudicated by the Media Council of Kenya.

At the same time, Malidzo told the court that the media houses were not given a chance to explain why they opted to broadcast the events live before being switched off.

“The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) unconstitutionally, illegally, and unprocedurally directed all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations. The Communications Authority further indicated that failure to abide by this unconstitutional directive would result in an unspecified ‘regulatory directive’. Subsequently, the police raided television media stations, including Citizen, NTV, and KTN transmission sites, and switched them off,” submitted Malidzo.

In response, Mr Mugonyi claimed that the decision to switch off was prompted by the media’s “depiction of violence as something to be celebrated.”

At the same time, he alleged that there was unbalanced commentary by guests invited by the television channels.

Mugonyi said the import of his orders was to protect trauma victims and children from scenes of violence. He further claimed that live broadcasts were inciting citizens to violence and advocating hatred.

“The directive was, therefore, informed by the fact that the broadcast of live demonstrations was inciting the citizenry to violence and advocating hatred. These are aspects that were supposed to be filtered out using the profanity delay mechanism. The directive did not ban all media coverage, but only live coverage of demonstrations. Media houses could still report through delayed broadcasts, digital platforms, or post-event analysis.”

Although Mugonyi hinged his directive on the Kenya Information and Communications Act, 1998, he argued that it aligned with the 2013 Kenya Information and Communications Act, Cap 41A, which gives the Media Council of Kenya (MCK) powers to regulate media and content aired or published.

“Actually, the broadcasters were at liberty to introduce a delay to enable the concerned editorial team in the stations to review the broadcast programming before it was aired. A directive was issued and conveyed to all licensed broadcasters via email at around 12:30pm EAT, after the Authority noted that the broadcasters were not utilising the profanity delay mechanism effectively,” alleged Mugonyi.

A separate case was filed by the Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ) and the Media Lawyers Association (MLA).

The court heard that the decision to suspend live transmission violated the right to information and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In their case filed before Justice Lawrence Mugambi, the two bodies claimed that the agency, chaired by Mary Wambui, also violated freedom of expression, media freedom, and transparency.

The court heard that although Mugonyi cited the law, he did not disclose which part of the broadcast the media houses had violated.

KUJ and MLA accused CA of overreach. They argued that the State agency had no powers or authority to dictate how any media house conducts its programming.

They asserted that there was no justification for taking such a drastic move.

The court documents filed on Thursday stated: “The decision of the first respondent to ban live transmission of demonstrations violated the right to freedom of expression, freedom of the media and access to information under Articles 33, 34, and 35 of the Constitution.”

KUJ and MLA sued CA, the Attorney General, Pan African Network Group (PANG), and Signet Group.

They also named The Standard Group PLC (SG), Nation Media Group (NMG), Royal Media Services (RMS), and the Media Council of Kenya (MCK) as interested parties.

The court heard that after CA issued the order, it raided the satellite sites of the media houses and switched off the transmission.

At the same time, PANG and Signet were accused of also switching off the media houses on the free-to-air platforms.

“As at the time of the instant application, broadcast content from the interested parties has not been available on the digital terrestrial platforms controlled by the 3rd and 4th respondent,” said KUJ and MLA.