Free media crucial for protection of right to protest
By Suba Churchill, June 27, 2025A directive from the Communications Authority (CA) to TV and radio stations to stop live broadcast of the June 25 memorial protests was not only unconstitutional and procedurally unfair, but also constituted egregious encroachment on media freedom and the crucial role that the media play in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms during protests.
Paradoxically, CA director general and CEO David Mugonyi referred to the Constitution in the threat to shut down outlets that did not comply.
The Constitution of Kenya, specifically Article 34, guarantees freedom and independence of the media, encompassing electronic, print, and all other forms. While this freedom is not absolute, live coverage of protests for which notices had been filed and acknowledged by the police cannot be construed as extending to expressions prohibited under Article 33(2) such as propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech, and advocacy of hatred.
And true to the threats, the CA switched off three national TV stations – Nation Media Group’s NTV, KTN and K24 – their signals disabled within minutes of the directive being issued, in total disregard for the rule of law, due process and separation of powers. This was not the only paradox in the directive, though. The CA director general worked for Nation Media Group for years before his appointment and meteoric rise as a national government employee.
Needless to say, the authority acted in breach of separation of the powers, a key notion in Kenya’s emerging democracy, effectively bypassing the proper legal processes and proceeding to act as the judge, jury, and executioner; by initiating the complaint, judging the merits of the case, and continuing to administer punishment on those perceived to have taken rather too long to abide by the directive.
Some of the media platforms openly expressed disapproval of what they considered to be CA’s exercise of excessive power. That’s as it should be, claiming one’s right whenever one is convinced that they have been violated. By failing to give adequate notice to the affected broadcasters to explain themselves, the authority had acted unilaterally, taking the law into its own hands.
According to the principles governing the right to protest internationally, states should ensure that all decision-making processes by public authorities like the CA that relate to protests are transparent, accessible and comply with international due process standards.
In particular, the principles require states to ensure that protesters and the general public receive timely notice of any regulatory decisions with justified reasons so that they can have recourse to prompt and effective remedy through administrative and/or judicial review.
States should enable the free flow of information relating to protests, including through all types of media, so that everyone can freely impart and receive information about protests before, during and after them. Without free flow of information, the decision by the CA, coming as it did in the middle of a protest, left protesters and non-protesters alike exposed.
It’s on this basis that the government should have refrained from imposing the ban on live coverage of the June 25 protests through broadcast.
A limitation or restriction to free flow of information on protests must have a formal basis in law with sufficient precision to enable practitioners to foresee whether a particular action would be in breach of the law and to assess the likely consequences.
The writer is the Executive Director of the Kenya National Civil Society Centre, and Chairperson of the Horn of Africa Civil Society Forum
— suba_churchill@yahoo.com