The Communications Authority of Kenya’s (CAK) directive halting live coverage of the June 25, 2025, peaceful demonstrations represents a dangerous assault on democratic freedoms.

This unconstitutional move threatens press independence and citizens’ right to information. 

The CAK’s communique cited Articles 33(2) and 34(1) of Kenya’s Constitution and Section 46I of the Kenya Information and Communications Act, ordering stations to “stop any live coverage of the demonstrations forthwith”. This directive fundamentally misinterprets constitutional intent. 

Article 33(1) guarantees every person freedom of expression, including the right to “seek, receive or impart information or ideas”.

Article 34(1) secures media freedom and independence across all platforms. These are sacrosanct rights, not suggestions. 

By ordering a media blackout, CAK directly violates these constitutional guarantees. Media houses serve as the public’s eyes and ears, with a constitutional mandate to inform citizens about unfolding events.

Live coverage provides real-time, unfiltered access to situations directly impacting the population. Denying this access violates citizens’ information rights and the media’s right to report. 

The claim that live coverage contradicts constitutional articles is perplexing. How can informing the public oppose freedom of expression?

This logic only makes sense if the goal is controlling narratives and ensuring only sanitised versions reach citizens. 

The most troubling aspect is the directive’s clear attempt to hide the truth and evade accountability. When live feeds are cut, the public remains in the dark.

What actually happens during protests – demonstrators’ actions and law enforcement responses – becomes subject to speculation and controlled narratives. 

This opacity breeds misinformation and allows those in power to operate without immediate scrutiny. Abuses like last night’s sexual assault or excessive daytime force become harder to witness and challenge.

Events can be reframed, downplayed, or obscured entirely, eroding public trust in media and governing institutions. 

While Section 46I addresses broadcasting and content regulation, it cannot supersede explicit constitutional guarantees.

Any directive infringing upon constitutional rights is unconstitutional by definition. CAK must protect constitutional freedoms, not undermine them. 

This directive reveals authoritarian impulses, a desire to control information during critical moments of public dissent.

Healthy democracies require diverse perspectives and uncensored reporting for informed discourse and accountability. Silencing the media during protests characterises regimes that fear transparency and scrutiny. 

For Kenya to uphold democratic values, such unconstitutional attempts to muzzle the media must be resisted.

Freedom of expression and media independence must be unequivocally respected. The truth, however inconvenient, must always emerge. 

The writer is a human rights Defender and a Communications Specialist