High Court faults Kisiang'ani for monopolising govt adverts
National
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Mar 20, 2025
The High Court in Nairobi has called out Principal Secretary, State Department for Broadcasting and Telecommunications Edward Kisiang'ani for limiting private media players from accessing government advertisements.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi said that Kisiang’ani has no authority to order or direct other public officers and entities where to place their advertisements.
At the same time, the judge was of the view that the PS's move was meant to censure independent media by starving them of money.
According to the Judge, Kisiang’ani misconceived the public procurement law and usurped the powers of the Treasury Cabinet Secretary to formulate policies and issue guidelines to government entities on the purchase of goods and services.
“The second respondent unlawfully appropriated unto himself non-existent powers. Under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, the second respondent has no capacity to exercise such powers rendering his memo void ab inito,” said Justice Mugambi.
READ MORE
Sudan tea export ban threatens nascent value addition hub in Mombasa
Practitioners bear burden of restoring trust in property sector
IM Bank opens new branch in Bungoma
Kenyan coffee prices surge as NCE records Sh19.3billion in sales
Coffee factories earn Sh19.3 billion from 375,843 bags at NCE
The Ghibli revolution: How AI anime is redefining digital images
AI coming for anime but Ghibli's Miyazaki irreplaceable, son says
Stock markets mixed as uncertainty rules ahead of Trump tariffs
PS calls for empowerment of women in procurement and supply chain
Lawyers and journalists dragged Kisiang'ani to court for monopolising government advertisements.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), Kenya Editors Guild (KEG) and Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ) in their case asked the High Court to quash the PS's decision.
The PS directed that all government advertising on television be exclusively done by Kenya Broadcasting Commission (KBC). However, LSK, KEG and KUJ argue dthat the directive is wrong and flouted the law on government's information.