MPs Reject Proposed Media Code, Citing Threats to Press Freedom
Quote from Lawyer on July 4, 2025, 7:24 amMembers of Parliament in Kenya have rejected a proposed media code, raising concerns that it poses significant threats to press freedom and the public's right to information. The decision follows intense debate and mounting pressure from media stakeholders, civil society, and rights groups, who argue that the code could undermine the constitutional protections guaranteed to journalists and media houses.
The proposed media code, introduced by the Communications Authority of Kenya, aimed to regulate media content and operations, with a focus on live broadcast coverage during events such as protests. According to government officials, the code was developed with input from media sector players and intended to ensure responsible journalism while addressing concerns about public safety and national security. However, parliamentarians and media advocates have criticized the proposal as an attempt to control and censor the press, particularly in light of recent government actions targeting media outlets.
The rejection of the code comes in the wake of significant tensions between the government and media houses, particularly following the Communications Authority's controversial directive on June 25, 2025, which ordered television and radio stations to halt live coverage of anti-government protests. The directive, which led to the temporary shutdown of signals for major stations like NTV, KTN, and Citizen TV, was widely condemned as an attack on press freedom. The Media Council of Kenya and other organizations, including the Kenya Editors' Guild, described the move as unconstitutional and a direct violation of the public's right to access information.
During parliamentary discussions, MPs expressed alarm over the proposed code's potential to restrict journalistic independence. They argued that it could give the Communications Authority undue power to control editorial content, bypassing the Media Council of Kenya, which is legally mandated to regulate the media sector. The lawmakers emphasized that such measures would erode the gains made in safeguarding press freedom under the 2010 Constitution, particularly Article 34, which guarantees media independence and prohibits state interference in broadcasting.
Civil society groups echoed these concerns, warning that the code could create an environment of fear and self-censorship among journalists. The Kenya Human Rights Commission and Katiba Institute, which have filed lawsuits challenging the Communications Authority's actions, argued that the proposed regulations fail to meet the constitutional threshold for limiting fundamental rights. They pointed out that any restrictions on media freedom must be justifiable in a democratic society and supported by clear legislation, a standard they claim the proposed code does not meet.
The rejection of the media code has been hailed as a victory for press freedom by media practitioners and advocacy groups. The Kenya Editors' Guild president praised the MPs' decision, stating that it reaffirms the media's role as a cornerstone of democracy. The guild called for continued vigilance to ensure that future regulatory proposals do not undermine the constitutional protections afforded to the press.
However, some government officials have defended the need for stricter media regulations, citing instances where live protest coverage allegedly contributed to public disorder. The Communications Authority's director general argued that the proposed code was not intended to censor the media but to ensure that broadcasts adhere to ethical standards, particularly during sensitive situations. He cited the absence of profanity delay mechanisms in some live broadcasts as a reason for the proposed oversight.
The debate over the media code has also reignited discussions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. While the government maintains that certain restrictions are necessary to maintain public order, critics argue that such measures are often used to suppress dissent and conceal state misconduct. The June 25 protests, which saw significant police action and reports of human rights violations, have been a focal point in this debate. Rights groups have accused the government of attempting to obscure its actions by limiting live media coverage, a claim that has gained traction following the High Court's intervention to suspend the Communications Authority's broadcast ban.
The court's ruling, issued by Justice Chacha Mwita, emphasized the importance of media freedom and ordered the immediate restoration of disrupted signals. The decision underscored the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights and served as a reminder of the legal protections in place for journalists. Media houses, in defiance of the initial ban, resumed live broadcasts and shifted coverage to online platforms like YouTube and social media, ensuring that the public remained informed.
As Kenya navigates this contentious issue, the rejection of the proposed media code marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle to protect press freedom. Parliamentarians have called for broader consultations with media stakeholders to develop regulations that uphold ethical standards without compromising journalistic independence. Meanwhile, civil society groups have urged the government to address the root causes of public unrest, such as economic challenges and perceived governance failures, rather than targeting the media.
The controversy surrounding the media code is likely to shape future discussions on media regulation in Kenya. For now, the rejection of the proposal signals a commitment to preserving the media's role in fostering transparency and accountability in a democratic society.
Members of Parliament in Kenya have rejected a proposed media code, raising concerns that it poses significant threats to press freedom and the public's right to information. The decision follows intense debate and mounting pressure from media stakeholders, civil society, and rights groups, who argue that the code could undermine the constitutional protections guaranteed to journalists and media houses.
The proposed media code, introduced by the Communications Authority of Kenya, aimed to regulate media content and operations, with a focus on live broadcast coverage during events such as protests. According to government officials, the code was developed with input from media sector players and intended to ensure responsible journalism while addressing concerns about public safety and national security. However, parliamentarians and media advocates have criticized the proposal as an attempt to control and censor the press, particularly in light of recent government actions targeting media outlets.
The rejection of the code comes in the wake of significant tensions between the government and media houses, particularly following the Communications Authority's controversial directive on June 25, 2025, which ordered television and radio stations to halt live coverage of anti-government protests. The directive, which led to the temporary shutdown of signals for major stations like NTV, KTN, and Citizen TV, was widely condemned as an attack on press freedom. The Media Council of Kenya and other organizations, including the Kenya Editors' Guild, described the move as unconstitutional and a direct violation of the public's right to access information.
During parliamentary discussions, MPs expressed alarm over the proposed code's potential to restrict journalistic independence. They argued that it could give the Communications Authority undue power to control editorial content, bypassing the Media Council of Kenya, which is legally mandated to regulate the media sector. The lawmakers emphasized that such measures would erode the gains made in safeguarding press freedom under the 2010 Constitution, particularly Article 34, which guarantees media independence and prohibits state interference in broadcasting.
Civil society groups echoed these concerns, warning that the code could create an environment of fear and self-censorship among journalists. The Kenya Human Rights Commission and Katiba Institute, which have filed lawsuits challenging the Communications Authority's actions, argued that the proposed regulations fail to meet the constitutional threshold for limiting fundamental rights. They pointed out that any restrictions on media freedom must be justifiable in a democratic society and supported by clear legislation, a standard they claim the proposed code does not meet.
The rejection of the media code has been hailed as a victory for press freedom by media practitioners and advocacy groups. The Kenya Editors' Guild president praised the MPs' decision, stating that it reaffirms the media's role as a cornerstone of democracy. The guild called for continued vigilance to ensure that future regulatory proposals do not undermine the constitutional protections afforded to the press.
However, some government officials have defended the need for stricter media regulations, citing instances where live protest coverage allegedly contributed to public disorder. The Communications Authority's director general argued that the proposed code was not intended to censor the media but to ensure that broadcasts adhere to ethical standards, particularly during sensitive situations. He cited the absence of profanity delay mechanisms in some live broadcasts as a reason for the proposed oversight.
The debate over the media code has also reignited discussions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. While the government maintains that certain restrictions are necessary to maintain public order, critics argue that such measures are often used to suppress dissent and conceal state misconduct. The June 25 protests, which saw significant police action and reports of human rights violations, have been a focal point in this debate. Rights groups have accused the government of attempting to obscure its actions by limiting live media coverage, a claim that has gained traction following the High Court's intervention to suspend the Communications Authority's broadcast ban.
The court's ruling, issued by Justice Chacha Mwita, emphasized the importance of media freedom and ordered the immediate restoration of disrupted signals. The decision underscored the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights and served as a reminder of the legal protections in place for journalists. Media houses, in defiance of the initial ban, resumed live broadcasts and shifted coverage to online platforms like YouTube and social media, ensuring that the public remained informed.
As Kenya navigates this contentious issue, the rejection of the proposed media code marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle to protect press freedom. Parliamentarians have called for broader consultations with media stakeholders to develop regulations that uphold ethical standards without compromising journalistic independence. Meanwhile, civil society groups have urged the government to address the root causes of public unrest, such as economic challenges and perceived governance failures, rather than targeting the media.
The controversy surrounding the media code is likely to shape future discussions on media regulation in Kenya. For now, the rejection of the proposal signals a commitment to preserving the media's role in fostering transparency and accountability in a democratic society.