As a wave of protests swelled across Kenya, a critical and concerning development unfolded, starkly illuminating the delicate balance between state authority and press freedom. The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) issued an abrupt and far-reaching directive, ordering a complete halt to live television and radio coverage of the ongoing nationwide demonstrations. This immediate action effectively silenced mainstream broadcasters—from Citizen TV and NTV to KTN and K24—and plunged millions of Kenyans into an unsettling information vacuum.
The CA’s controversial order, signed by Director-General David Mugonyi, was unequivocal. It explicitly instructed "all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations forthwith," coupling this command with a stern warning of unspecified "regulatory action as stipulated in the Kenya Information and Communication Act, 1998," for any non-compliance. The Authority's stated justification for this drastic measure was rooted in concerns over "public order and safety." However, this rationale was swiftly and broadly rejected by civil society groups, human rights advocates, and media organizations, who universally condemned the move as a blatant attempt to gag the press and suppress real-time information from the streets.
The directive's impact was immediate and profound. As the afternoon progressed and protests escalated across various counties, the sudden blackout on traditional media forced the public to scramble for alternative sources of information. Kenyans, eager to understand the unfolding events, increasingly turned to the raw, unedited live streams shared by protesters on social media platforms like YouTube and TikTok. This forced reliance on citizen journalism, while demonstrating the resilience of digital communication, simultaneously underscored the state's perceived attempt to control the narrative. The public's anger intensified as they watched mainstream screens go blank, interpreting the action as a deliberate effort by the government to keep civilians "at bay" and hold back critical information.
The censorship attempt triggered a storm of criticism from key stakeholders. The Kenya Editors Guild, a powerful voice for journalistic integrity, led the charge against the CA's actions. Its President, Zubeida Kananu, vehemently condemned the directive, accusing the Authority of overstepping its mandate and usurping powers that rightfully belong to the Media Council of Kenya, the body constitutionally tasked with handling complaints against media houses. "What I read in this is interference. They are trying to control the media. They have done this, not once or twice, before. Why can’t they let the media exercise their duty and mandate to inform Kenyans on what is going on?” Kananu asserted, reflecting widespread outrage.
Kananu's sentiments were echoed by numerous other civil society organizations and legal experts, who saw the ban not just as a violation of media freedom but as a direct assault on the constitutional rights of Kenyans to access information and express themselves. The unified front against the CA's directive highlighted a deep-seated concern that the government was prioritizing control over transparency, particularly during a period of significant public unrest.
Yesterday's events illuminated a critical tension in Kenya's democratic space: the persistent struggle between state authority and the fundamental freedoms of expression and the press. The CA's directive showcased a willingness to employ drastic measures to manage information during protests, creating a chilling effect on the media landscape. However, the public's swift adaptation to digital alternatives, coupled with the immediate and strong condemnation from various influential bodies, demonstrated a collective defiance against attempts at censorship.
