MPs questions State overreach in new media code of conduct

A parliamentary committee is now questioning attempts by the State to muzzle the media under the new Code of Conduct for Media Practice, 2025.

During a session where MPs termed some sections of the code of conduct as contentious, they also took issue with ICT Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo over the shutting down of TV signals during June 25, protests.

This came even as the House team insisted there should be a well defined legal basis for live coverage, to provide a uniform standard for suspension, rather than abrupt decisions. 

Kabogo, who appeared before the National Assembly Committee on Delegated Legislation on Thursday, said live coverage was banned on June 25 following violent content aired during the watershed period when children were watching.

The CS made the remarks in response to a query by Kathiani MP Robert Mbui, who questioned the ="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001522690/government-threatens-media-blackout-over-protests-coverage">rationale for the suspension<.

“I am curious to know why the CS instructed for suspension of live streaming of demos on June 25,” said Mbui.

Mathare MP Anthony Oluoch also called for clear guidelines on live broadcasting to prevent arbitrary or selective implementation.

Stop livestreaming

“We cannot within ourselves say that it is dangerous to stop live streaming in one circumstance but then in other circumstances it is different. There needs to be a standard way that is bench-marked either in the Acts or in some regulations. If we don’t do that, we leave it to the whims of the media to be very reckless or for the government to also be very reckless to contain media freedoms,” Oluoch said.

Committee Chair, Ainabkoi MP Samuel Chepkonga, added: “You may have invoked certain powers that do not exist in law. It is only parliament under Article 94 of the Constitution that can make anything that has the force of law and so far, we haven’t done that.” 

But the CS explained, “The main reason was because it was ="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/national/article/2001516617/young-mps-vow-to-champion-freedom-of-expression-and-media-freedom">during watershed period<. There was a lot of violence that was aired on national TV, when children were watching.

You realise it went on for a while as long as it was peaceful, but when the violence became too much, the committee responsible advised suspension to protect children... it is for that purpose that it was switched off, not for any other purpose.”

During the session, MPs interrogated the new code of conduct, which aims to repeal existing laws and introduces several new clauses.

What it entails

According to Part I of the Code of Conduct, covering on accuracy, balance and fairness, a person subject to the laws is expected to make all attempts to verify facts for accuracy and authenticity before publication or broadcast.

Opinions and editorials must also be grounded in verifiable facts, with a requirement to verify statements and allegations made in public spaces prior to publication. 

The Code has also called for the need to make reasonable efforts to seek comments from any person mentioned adversely in editorial content, unless such mention occurs in an opinion or commentary where the underlying facts are already publicly established.

“A person subject to this Act shall present all material sides of an issue being published in a fair and impartial manner; preserve evidence of unsuccessful attempts to contact persons adversely mentioned in a publication and clearly distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact in all reporting,” states the Code.

It also states that headlines should accurately reflect the content and context of the subject matter and where they contain allegations, attribute the source or enclose the allegation in quotation marks.

The code advocates for equitable treatment of all persons as news subjects or sources and urges sensitivity to cultural and contextual representation.

The MPs also questioned some of the definitions provided saying, they require clarity.

They for instance, made reference to Clause 2 which states that, “‘claim’ means any statement, assertion, or ="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/opinion/article/2001523074/violent-attacks-against-journalists-highlight-shrinking-press-freedom">representation of fact, opinion, or belief presented as true< in a publication, whether in written, oral, or digital form, that is subject to verification unless derived from a privileged or legally protected document where verification is impracticable.”

Under Clause 8(f) on editorial integrity, the Code demands full disclosure of sponsored content and clear separation between editorial and promotional material. It also prohibits photographing or recording individuals in private settings without their knowledge unless justified by public interest.

“Before recording or broadcasting a conversation, inform any party to the call of the intent to do so, unless public interest justifies otherwise,” it states.

The Code introduces new sections on protecting children, victims of sexual violence, and vulnerable individuals. “Exceptional care shall be exercised when reporting on children to ensure their best interests, protection, and overall welfare. A child, or their parent or legal guardian, shall not be compensated for information concerning the child’s welfare, unless it is demonstrably in the child’s best interest,” it states.

Part IV addresses user-generated content, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies. It prohibits the use of AI in ways that reinforce harmful stereotypes, compromise accuracy, or violate intellectual property rights.

The Code requires media outlets to disclose when AI has been used in generating or editing content and mandates that such material be reviewed and approved by human editors prior to publication.

Cloning the likeness, voice, or persona of real individuals using AI is prohibited without informed consent—unless justified by public interest and in compliance with law.

On gambling and betting, the Code calls for safeguards to limit exposure to children and vulnerable persons, including disclaimers on addiction and financial risks.

But MPs raised alarms, with Mr Mbui suggesting it is a veiled attempt to muzzle the press.

“The CS says it wants to balance media freedom with public interest and accountability. Remember that media freedom is one of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights, but when I look at this, I see an attempt to muzzle the media in some subtle ways.”

He cited section on verifying accuracy of statements and allegations made in public spaces before publication and sought an explanation.

“What are you saying? That if I stand in a public forum and say something, that the media person has to verify what I have said and the sources of my information, I think the media is supposed to report what I say. Those are my comments.  If anybody has an issue, they should raise the issue with me. But here I’m seeing an attempt to transfer the verification of statements made in public, because you’ve actually mentioned public spaces,” he said.

Code transfers verification

MPs expressed concern that the code transfers verification responsibility to reporters, making them liable in contentious situations.

They also questioned the provision requiring evidence of efforts to contact adversely mentioned individuals: “So, in essence, you’re saying if somebody violate someone, then that person should be sought so that they can also give their opinion,” the MP wondered. He added, “Many are the times when the information needs to get out quickly. If you say you’re going to verify with someone abroad and you attempted to call and you couldn’t get them, I don’t know whether they will be muzzling the media,” said Mbui.

Kabogo and Media Council of Kenya CEO David Omwoyo countered that media was involved in drafting the code.

“When we were interrogating this at the Ministry, I was made to understand that the media was also part of these deliberations,” said Kabogo. 

With Omwoyo adding, “Yes, I confirm that the media were part of drafting this. Actually, the local taskforce was led by editors. I confirm that the work of a regulator is to protect the public and so we were asking the journalists their take on what level we protect the public. It’s that balance in between.