Mugonyi: CA did not ban protest coverage, it wanted delay of live broadcasting

In a detailed response filed in court, the Authority’s Director General David Mugonyi argued that the directive was lawful, reasonable, and necessary to prevent incitement to violence and protect national security.

While acknowledging that Article 34(1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom and independence of the media, Mugonyi maintained that the right is not absolute. It cited Article 33(2), which excludes expressions such as incitement to violence, hate speech, and advocacy of hatred from constitutional protection.

“The directive was not a blanket ban on media coverage. It only applied to live coverage, which was being misused to incite violence and fuel public disorder,” Mugonyi submitted.

According to the CA Director General, the broadcasters had failed to activate the required profanity delay mechanism, resulting in the unfiltered airing of graphic and inflammatory content. The directive, the Authority added, merely required media houses to introduce a short delay to allow editorial teams to monitor and review content before broadcast.

“THAT in a nutshell the directive merely required all broadcasters to activate the profanity delay mechanism. This does not mean that the Authority directed the broadcasters not-to-air the demonstrations rather they should not air the live coverage of the demonstrations,” says Mugonyi.

In its responses the CA pointed to incidents of violence that erupted during the protests, including looting in Nairobi, Thika, and Nakuru, and the burning of Kikuyu Law Courts and Kikuyu Police Station, as evidence that live broadcasts were escalating unrest.

The Authority further argued that its directive aligns with international best practices, noting that democracies such as the United States, United Kingdom, and India allow temporary broadcast restrictions during periods of civil unrest or national emergencies.

The regulatory body says it also invoked Section 46 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act, which outlines the responsibilities of licensed broadcasters, including ensuring responsible programming, presenting news accurately and impartially, and offering balanced perspectives on controversial issues.

Through its legal representatives, Koskei Mond Advocates LLP, the CA maintained that the directive was a proportionate response to an escalating situation and that the petitioners challenging the order had failed to demonstrate how their rights were violated.

“The safety of Kenyans and the stability of the nation had to be prioritized,” the Authority said. “The directive was in line with both the Constitution and the law, and did not amount to censorship, but rather responsible regulation.”

The matter will be mentioned  in court again on October 27 for further directions before Justice Chacha Mwita.