Court Rejects Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja’s Bid to Gag Nation Media Group
Quote from Lawyer on July 2, 2025, 9:10 amIn a significant victory for press freedom in Kenya, the High Court in Nairobi has dismissed a request by Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja to block Nation Media Group (NMG) from publishing stories about him. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the media’s role in holding public officials accountable.
Governor Sakaja’s legal bid stemmed from a series of NMG reports linking him to alleged political misconduct, particularly during the violent protests that rocked Nairobi’s Central Business District (CBD) on June 17, 2025. Sakaja sought an injunction to prevent NMG from publishing further stories, claiming that the media house’s use of his photograph alongside headlines suggesting he orchestrated chaos during the protests was defamatory and damaging to his reputation.
The protests, largely driven by Kenya’s Gen Z population, were in response to allegations of police brutality and poor governance. Reports emerged that armed groups, allegedly hired to disrupt the demonstrations, were linked to powerful figures, with Sakaja’s name repeatedly mentioned. NMG’s coverage included claims that these groups were seen chanting in support of the governor, fueling public speculation about his involvement.
Sakaja argued that NMG’s reporting was malicious and politically motivated, accusing the media house of tarnishing his image without evidence. He requested a court order to restrain NMG from publishing any further content about him, pending a full hearing of a defamation lawsuit he intended to file.
In a strongly worded judgment, the High Court rejected Sakaja’s application, emphasizing that granting the injunction would infringe upon the media’s constitutional mandate to report on matters of public interest. The court noted that Sakaja, as a public official, is subject to scrutiny, particularly regarding allegations of misconduct that affect the governance of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city.
The judge highlighted that NMG’s reporting was based on events of significant public concern, including the violent protests and allegations of political interference. The court found no evidence that the media house acted with malice or in bad faith. Instead, it ruled that NMG’s coverage fell within the bounds of fair and responsible journalism, protected under Article 33 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and Article 34, which safeguards media freedom.
The court further stated that Sakaja’s request for a blanket gag order was overly broad and would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom in Kenya. “Public officials cannot hide behind the courts to shield themselves from legitimate media scrutiny,” the judge remarked, adding that Sakaja had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that would justify such an injunction.
The decision was met with widespread approval from media practitioners, civil society groups, and advocates of press freedom. The Kenya Editors’ Guild hailed the ruling as a “landmark victory” for the media, stressing that it reinforces the judiciary’s role as a protector of democratic principles. “This is a win for every journalist working to hold power to account,” said a spokesperson for the guild. “The court has sent a clear message that attempts to intimidate the press will not be tolerated.”
Civil society organizations, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), also welcomed the ruling. The KNCHR, which has been monitoring the protests and related incidents, noted that media coverage has been critical in exposing alleged abuses of power and ensuring transparency. “The press plays an indispensable role in a democracy, especially during times of public unrest,” a KNCHR representative stated.
On social media, Kenyans celebrated the court’s decision, with many viewing it as a rebuke of efforts to suppress critical reporting. Hashtags such as #MediaFreedom and #SakajaVsNMG trended on X, reflecting public support for NMG and calls for accountability from elected officials.
However, some of Sakaja’s supporters expressed disappointment, arguing that the governor has been unfairly targeted by the media. They echoed his claims that the reports are part of a smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents to undermine his administration.
Governor Sakaja has been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks, particularly following the June 17 protests, during which armed groups were accused of infiltrating peaceful demonstrations. Videos circulating online showed individuals chanting pro-Sakaja slogans, leading to speculation about his involvement. Sakaja has vehemently denied these allegations, calling them “false, malicious, and politically motivated.” He has also provided evidence, including flight receipts, to show he was out of Nairobi during the protests, attending a church event in Lugari, Kakamega.
In response to the court’s ruling, Sakaja issued a brief statement, expressing respect for the judiciary but maintaining that NMG’s reporting was irresponsible. “I will continue to seek justice through lawful means,” he said, hinting at the possibility of pursuing the defamation lawsuit despite the failed injunction.
The High Court’s decision comes at a time of heightened tensions in Nairobi, where protests over governance and police brutality have led to significant unrest. At least eight people were killed and over 400 injured during demonstrations on June 25, 2025, marking the one-year anniversary of deadly anti-tax protests. The involvement of alleged hired groups has raised questions about the state of democracy in Kenya and the role of political leaders in maintaining public order.
The ruling also highlights ongoing debates about the balance between public officials’ reputations and the media’s right to report on matters of public interest. Legal experts noted that the court’s decision aligns with Kenya’s progressive constitutional framework, which prioritizes transparency and accountability over attempts to stifle criticism.
For NMG, the ruling is a vindication of its journalistic mission. The media house has faced similar legal challenges in the past, often from powerful figures seeking to limit its reporting. In a statement, NMG reaffirmed its commitment to “fearless and factual journalism” and pledged to continue covering the protests and related developments.
While the court’s decision marks a setback for Sakaja, it does not preclude him from pursuing a defamation case against NMG. Legal analysts suggest that such a case would require him to prove that the media house’s reporting was false and published with malicious intent, a high bar under Kenyan law.
Meanwhile, the broader issues raised by the protests, including allegations of political interference and police brutality, remain unresolved. Activists and residents are pressing for investigations into the June 17 incidents, with calls for those responsible for the violence to be held accountable.
As Nairobi braces for potential further demonstrations, the High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role of a free press in safeguarding democracy. For now, NMG and other media outlets are free to continue their coverage, ensuring that the public remains informed about the actions of their leaders.
In a significant victory for press freedom in Kenya, the High Court in Nairobi has dismissed a request by Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja to block Nation Media Group (NMG) from publishing stories about him. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the media’s role in holding public officials accountable.
Governor Sakaja’s legal bid stemmed from a series of NMG reports linking him to alleged political misconduct, particularly during the violent protests that rocked Nairobi’s Central Business District (CBD) on June 17, 2025. Sakaja sought an injunction to prevent NMG from publishing further stories, claiming that the media house’s use of his photograph alongside headlines suggesting he orchestrated chaos during the protests was defamatory and damaging to his reputation.
The protests, largely driven by Kenya’s Gen Z population, were in response to allegations of police brutality and poor governance. Reports emerged that armed groups, allegedly hired to disrupt the demonstrations, were linked to powerful figures, with Sakaja’s name repeatedly mentioned. NMG’s coverage included claims that these groups were seen chanting in support of the governor, fueling public speculation about his involvement.
Sakaja argued that NMG’s reporting was malicious and politically motivated, accusing the media house of tarnishing his image without evidence. He requested a court order to restrain NMG from publishing any further content about him, pending a full hearing of a defamation lawsuit he intended to file.
In a strongly worded judgment, the High Court rejected Sakaja’s application, emphasizing that granting the injunction would infringe upon the media’s constitutional mandate to report on matters of public interest. The court noted that Sakaja, as a public official, is subject to scrutiny, particularly regarding allegations of misconduct that affect the governance of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city.
The judge highlighted that NMG’s reporting was based on events of significant public concern, including the violent protests and allegations of political interference. The court found no evidence that the media house acted with malice or in bad faith. Instead, it ruled that NMG’s coverage fell within the bounds of fair and responsible journalism, protected under Article 33 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and Article 34, which safeguards media freedom.
The court further stated that Sakaja’s request for a blanket gag order was overly broad and would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom in Kenya. “Public officials cannot hide behind the courts to shield themselves from legitimate media scrutiny,” the judge remarked, adding that Sakaja had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that would justify such an injunction.
The decision was met with widespread approval from media practitioners, civil society groups, and advocates of press freedom. The Kenya Editors’ Guild hailed the ruling as a “landmark victory” for the media, stressing that it reinforces the judiciary’s role as a protector of democratic principles. “This is a win for every journalist working to hold power to account,” said a spokesperson for the guild. “The court has sent a clear message that attempts to intimidate the press will not be tolerated.”
Civil society organizations, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR), also welcomed the ruling. The KNCHR, which has been monitoring the protests and related incidents, noted that media coverage has been critical in exposing alleged abuses of power and ensuring transparency. “The press plays an indispensable role in a democracy, especially during times of public unrest,” a KNCHR representative stated.
On social media, Kenyans celebrated the court’s decision, with many viewing it as a rebuke of efforts to suppress critical reporting. Hashtags such as #MediaFreedom and #SakajaVsNMG trended on X, reflecting public support for NMG and calls for accountability from elected officials.
However, some of Sakaja’s supporters expressed disappointment, arguing that the governor has been unfairly targeted by the media. They echoed his claims that the reports are part of a smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents to undermine his administration.
Governor Sakaja has been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks, particularly following the June 17 protests, during which armed groups were accused of infiltrating peaceful demonstrations. Videos circulating online showed individuals chanting pro-Sakaja slogans, leading to speculation about his involvement. Sakaja has vehemently denied these allegations, calling them “false, malicious, and politically motivated.” He has also provided evidence, including flight receipts, to show he was out of Nairobi during the protests, attending a church event in Lugari, Kakamega.
In response to the court’s ruling, Sakaja issued a brief statement, expressing respect for the judiciary but maintaining that NMG’s reporting was irresponsible. “I will continue to seek justice through lawful means,” he said, hinting at the possibility of pursuing the defamation lawsuit despite the failed injunction.
The High Court’s decision comes at a time of heightened tensions in Nairobi, where protests over governance and police brutality have led to significant unrest. At least eight people were killed and over 400 injured during demonstrations on June 25, 2025, marking the one-year anniversary of deadly anti-tax protests. The involvement of alleged hired groups has raised questions about the state of democracy in Kenya and the role of political leaders in maintaining public order.
The ruling also highlights ongoing debates about the balance between public officials’ reputations and the media’s right to report on matters of public interest. Legal experts noted that the court’s decision aligns with Kenya’s progressive constitutional framework, which prioritizes transparency and accountability over attempts to stifle criticism.
For NMG, the ruling is a vindication of its journalistic mission. The media house has faced similar legal challenges in the past, often from powerful figures seeking to limit its reporting. In a statement, NMG reaffirmed its commitment to “fearless and factual journalism” and pledged to continue covering the protests and related developments.
While the court’s decision marks a setback for Sakaja, it does not preclude him from pursuing a defamation case against NMG. Legal analysts suggest that such a case would require him to prove that the media house’s reporting was false and published with malicious intent, a high bar under Kenyan law.
Meanwhile, the broader issues raised by the protests, including allegations of political interference and police brutality, remain unresolved. Activists and residents are pressing for investigations into the June 17 incidents, with calls for those responsible for the violence to be held accountable.
As Nairobi braces for potential further demonstrations, the High Court’s ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role of a free press in safeguarding democracy. For now, NMG and other media outlets are free to continue their coverage, ensuring that the public remains informed about the actions of their leaders.