High Court strikes out rules giving CA powers on television content

The High Court has declared sections of the law that give the Communication Authority sweeping powers to control content aired by media houses in Kenya.

While terming the move by the government as censorship and a violation of media freedom, High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi invalidated the broadcasting code.

“Governmental control or censorship through giving of directions to media content and as to how and when content should be aired is adversative to the independence and freedom of media from governmental control and is against the principles of a free and independent media under Article 34,” the judge ruled.

In the case, CA claimed that it was setting the code of conduct for broadcast in order to protect children from obscene content.

.

Keep Reading business

•  Huawei, charity partners to empower women with digital skills in Kenya
•  African ministers champion ICT adoption for sustainable growth
•  Digital lender Tala surpasses Sh300bn mobile loans as Kenyans borrow more
•  KCB beats Equity in profits race as earnings after tax hit Sh44.5b
•  Government back to drawing board after KRA misses tax targets

“It ought to be responsibility of the Media Council to set and monitor the ethical codes for the protection of the children and or any other vulnerable group and to monitor and enforce them, not the 1st respondent. This court must uphold the independence of the media as protected under Article 34 which advances the rule of law and upholds the principles and purpose of the Constitution,” said Mugambi.

The Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ) filed the case. The lobby argued that Kenya Information Communication (Broadcasting) Regulations, 2009 confers the power to CA to set standards for the time and manner of programmes to be broadcast, set up a dispute resolution procedure, gives it the power to prescribe a programme code, among others.

According to the union, CA was usurping the powers of the MCK.

The Eric Oduor-led union also argued that the areas CA sought  to cover are already addressed in the Code of Conduct for Practice of Journalism under Schedule 2 of the Media Council Act, hence is an unnecessary duplication.

KUJ argued that the code’s language is vague, generalised and uncertain. The court heard that it restricted the general conduct of journalism and exposed journalists to a myriad of complaints.

The union observed that the MCK complaints board ought to have comprised a chairperson appointed by the President, principal secretaries, and seven persons appointed by the Cabinet Secretary.

Mugambi gave MCK six months to develop rules to protect children from inappropriate content.