State embarks on further stepsto muzzle media
By Mercy Mwai, July 4, 2025President William Ruto’s government has embarked on an ominous ego trip that will lead to further muzzling the media, proposing to vet content before it is aired and placing punitive demands on the writing of headlines.
If proposed regulations are passed, the media will be required to take responsibility for defamatory comments from their sources, as well as edit the speeches of politicians and public officials to fit into an opaque new standard.
In a case of rare defence for the freedom of the media, MPs yesterday warned that the new code of conduct for media practitioners that will, among other things, require headlines to reflect the context of the subject matter, and for opinions, commentaries, and editorials to be verified before being published will curtail press freedom once passed.
Curtailing press freedoms
MPs threatened to revoke the controversial regulations, arguing that the proposed code of conduct will curtail press freedom and violate constitutional protections.
MPs on the Delegated Legislation Committee, chaired by Ainabkoi MP Samuel Chepkonga, scrutinised regulations establishing a new code of conduct for media practitioners. The proposed code introduces 32 new clauses that would significantly expand oversight of media operations.
“I do not know whether we should ask the Attorney General to do a corrigendum or we do a revocation of this regulation,” said Chepkonga. “In these regulations there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.”
The MPs met with ICT and Digital Economy Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo and Media Council of Kenya officials, led by CEO David Omwoyo, to discuss the regulations that would replace the current code of ethics in place for 13 years.
Provisions under scrutiny
The new regulations would require media houses to ensure headlines accurately reflect content and context. When headlines contain allegations, sources must be attributed or quotation marks must enclose the allegations. Practitioners would also need to verify privileged or legally protected documents before publication.
Additional requirements include refraining from quoting derogatory remarks based on ethnicity, race, creed, colour, sex, or other protected characteristics, except where public interest justifies it. Media outlets would need to redact offensive words when reporting hate speech.
According to the regulations, media practitioners must “make reasonable efforts to seek comments from any person mentioned adversely in editorial content, unless such mention occurs in an opinion or commentary where the underlying facts are already publicly established” and “present all material sides of an issue being published in a fair and impartial manner”.
The code mandates preserving evidence of unsuccessful attempts to contact persons adversely mentioned in publications, distinguishing editorial content from marketing and sponsored materials, and informing parties before recording conversations unless public interest justifies otherwise.
Technical and ethical standards
Media enterprises would be required to incorporate a minimum seven-second delay in live broadcasts to prevent unintended publication of code violations. Sponsored content must adhere to accuracy, fairness, and objectivity standards equal to editorial content.
The regulations address modern challenges including artificial intelligence disclosure requirements. Media houses must “disclose to the audience whenever artificial intelligence has been used in the creation, modification, or editing of images, videos, or other editorial material.”
Regarding gambling content, outlets must ensure that “gaming, betting, and lottery content does not portray, condone, or encourage socially irresponsible behaviour and does not present gambling as a solution to financial problems”.
Parliamentary pushback
For children’s protection, the code requires minimising violence and strong language in children’s content and ensuring digital platforms incorporate parental controls and age-based filtering mechanisms.
The regulations state that “a person subject to this Act shall not pay sources for information, unless the public interest overwhelmingly requires such payment, and it is declared, justified, and approved by the editor”.
The MPs’ threats came as they challenged Kabogo over his decision to stop live coverage of June 25 demonstrations. Kabogo defended the action, citing watershed period protections for children between 5am and 10pm.
“The main reason the switching off was done was because the violence was being relayed during watershed periods,” Kabogo explained. “When the violence became rampant my committee responsible for this advised that we switch off.”
However, MPs questioned the legal basis for such actions and expressed concerns about expanding government powers over media operations.
Kathiani MP Robert Mbui criticised the verification requirements, asking: “What are you saying? That if I stand in a public forum and say something, that the media person has to verify what I have said and the sources of my information? I think the media is supposed to report what I say. They will air what I say. Is it their responsibility to verify what I have said?”
Kigumo MP Kamu Munyoro echoed these concerns, arguing the regulations represent “a complete trial of killing opinion and the freedom of the media to express whatever they feel like. If I say something that someone feels like it should not be said, they can take me to court”.
Industry response
Omwoyo, the Media Council of Kenya CEO, defended the regulations, stating that media houses participated in drafting and supported them. “Actually, the local task force was led by editors,” he said. “I confirm that when I dealt with draft regulations, the work of a regulator is to protect the public.”
He added: “By the way, we agree that we have at least a minimum responsibility about freedom and responsibility.”