Kenyan High Court Blocks Government’s Ban on Live Protest Coverage, Defends Press Freedom — Full Breakdown
In a landmark decision that has sparked widespread debate across Kenya and beyond, the High Court in Nairobi has stepped in to suspend a controversial directive by the Kenyan government aimed at silencing live media coverage of the ongoing anti-government protests across the country. The directive, issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK), had ordered all television and radio stations to immediately halt live broadcasts of the demonstrations. However, legal intervention, led by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), prompted swift judicial action, resulting in the High Court issuing orders to protect press freedom and constitutional rights.
This development has significant implications for freedom of expression, the rule of law, and the role of the media in democratic societies. In this comprehensive breakdown for NaijaRush, we explore the details of the directive, the legal arguments, and what this decision means for Kenya and Africa at large.
Background: Government Moves to Muzzle the Press
On Wednesday, June 25, 2025, a directive referenced as CA/CE/BC/TV 90A was released by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK). It instructed all broadcasters—radio and television—to cease all live coverage of the protests currently sweeping across multiple cities in Kenya.
The CAK based its decision on Article 33(2) and Article 34(1) of the Kenyan Constitution, as well as Section 461 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act. According to the authority, broadcasting the protests "posed a threat to national security and public order." The government argued that airing live footage of crowds in the streets might incite further unrest and violate the law.
The directive was clear in its warning: media houses that disobeyed would face regulatory consequences. These included suspension of licenses, fines, and possible shutdowns.
Media Editors React: “An Attack on Press Freedom”
This move was immediately met with resistance. Kenyan media editors and journalists across the board condemned the directive, calling it a direct assault on freedom of the press and the public’s right to know.
In a joint statement, prominent editors said:
“This is a grave attempt to silence the media and deny Kenyans access to real-time information. We will not comply with an unlawful order that violates constitutional guarantees.”
The Kenya Editors’ Guild, Media Council of Kenya, and various local broadcasters argued that the directive was not only unconstitutional but dangerous to democracy. They accused the government of trying to control the narrative and hide the reality on the ground.
Legal Action: The Law Society of Kenya Steps In
In response to the outcry and what many saw as government overreach, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) quickly filed a constitutional petition before the High Court at Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi. The petition sought to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the CAK’s directive.
Presiding over the case was Justice E.C. Mwita, who wasted no time in addressing the urgency of the situation. The LSK argued that the directive:
-
Violated freedom of expression
-
Undermined the right to access information
-
Threatened the independence of the media
-
Contradicted the constitutional role of the press in holding power accountable
The High Court’s Intervention: “Restore All Broadcasting Immediately”
In a dramatic turn of events, the High Court issued an emergency ruling on Wednesday, suspending the directive with immediate effect. Justice E.C. Mwita ruled that the petition filed by the Law Society raised “substantial constitutional questions” about the limits of state power and the rights of the public.
In his ruling, Justice Mwita emphasized:
“This matter touches on the constitutional rights of Kenyans to access information and the freedom of the press. These issues are of such importance that they cannot be ignored or delayed.”
The judge ordered that:
-
The directive from the CAK be suspended immediately.
-
Broadcast signals that had been shut down be restored without delay.
-
All pleadings and court notices be served electronically due to the urgency of the case.
Widespread Applause: A Victory for Democracy
This ruling has been welcomed across Kenya by legal experts, civil society groups, human rights activists, and members of the press. Many have hailed it as a defining moment in Kenya’s democratic journey.
Renowned legal scholar Prof. Makau Mutua tweeted:
“The court’s decision is a bold reaffirmation of the Constitution and the independence of the judiciary. A free press is the backbone of democracy.”
Similarly, civil society organizations such as Article 19 Eastern Africa, Transparency International Kenya, and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) issued statements applauding the judiciary for standing up to political pressure.
What’s Next? July 2 Court Hearing Set for Further Directions
While the directive has been temporarily suspended, the matter is far from over. The court has scheduled a hearing for July 2, 2025, to determine the full merits of the case and whether the CAK acted lawfully in issuing the broadcast ban.
Legal analysts believe this could lead to a landmark ruling that will clarify the boundaries between national security and constitutional freedoms in Kenya.
Why This Matters — Lessons for Africa and Beyond
This case is not just about Kenya. It reflects a wider struggle across Africa where governments, in times of crisis or dissent, attempt to stifle media freedom under the guise of maintaining order.
From Nigeria to Uganda, Ethiopia to Zimbabwe, similar crackdowns on media have occurred during protests, elections, or political upheavals. The Kenyan High Court’s intervention sends a strong signal: constitutional rights must be protected, even during difficult times.
This also highlights the critical role that independent courts and civil society watchdogs play in defending democracy.
Conclusion: Justice Prevails, For Now
The High Court’s decision to suspend the media blackout directive is being seen as a temporary but powerful win for freedom of expression in Kenya. As the country continues to witness widespread protests against economic hardship and governance failures, the right to report these events in real time remains crucial.
At the heart of this case is a fundamental question: Can a government, even during unrest, silence the voice of the people and the press? The courts have answered—for now—no.
With the next court session set for July 2, 2025, all eyes remain on Kenya’s judiciary to uphold justice and constitutional values in the face of increasing pressure.
For NaijaRush readers, this is a reminder that freedom of the press is not just a media issue—it is a people’s issue.
"Ruto Must Go!" – Kenyans Storm Streets on Protest Anniversary
— NaijaRush (@thisisNaijaRush) June 26, 2025
Thousands of Kenyans poured into the streets chanting "Ruto must go!" on the one-year anniversary of last year’s deadly protests. The demonstrations, driven by anger over high taxes, corruption, and the rising cost… pic.twitter.com/EY05pVzd6A
