The Director General of the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), David Mugonyi, has defended the controversial CA protest broadcast directive, clarifying that it did not ban media coverage of the June 25, 2025, anti-government protests. Instead, the directive sought to introduce a brief delay in live broadcasts to enable editorial oversight and prevent the spread of incitement or violence.
In court filings, Mugonyi argued that the directive was lawful, reasonable, and consistent with national security obligations.
No Ban — Just Delay: CA Protest Broadcast Directive Explained
Mugonyi emphasized that the CA protest broadcast directive was not a blanket media ban but a requirement for all broadcasters to activate a profanity delay mechanism. This delay would allow content to be reviewed before it aired live.
“The Authority did not direct broadcasters not to air the demonstrations,” Mugonyi stated. “They were simply advised to avoid live coverage without editorial oversight.”
According to CA, many broadcasters failed to implement the delay system, leading to the real-time transmission of graphic, inciteful content during protests.
Legal Basis for the CA Directive
The CA cited multiple legal justifications for the CA protest broadcast directive. While Article 34(1) of the Kenyan Constitution guarantees media freedom, the Authority relied on Article 33(2), which limits expressions involving hate speech, incitement to violence, or advocacy of hatred.
In addition, the directive drew authority from Section 46 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act, which mandates that broadcasters:
- Present news accurately and impartially,
- Ensure responsible programming,
- Provide balanced perspectives on contentious issues.
Through its lawyers, Koskei Mond Advocates LLP, the CA argued that the directive was a proportionate and necessary response to protect public order.
Violent Incidents Justifications
The CA protest broadcast directive was issued in the wake of violent demonstrations that included:
- Looting in Nairobi, Thika, and Nakuru,
- The torching of Kikuyu Law Courts and the Kikuyu Police Station.
CA claims that live footage during the unrest contributed to escalating tensions and posed a public safety risk. The delay mechanism was proposed as a moderate measure to curb further violence while preserving media coverage.
Global Precedent for the CA Directive
The Communications Authority also drew comparisons to media regulation in democracies like the United States, United Kingdom, and India, which all allow temporary broadcast restrictions during civil unrest or emergencies.
This international precedent, according to CA, supports the legitimacy of the CA protest broadcast directive as a tool for responsible media governance during volatile moments.
Read Also: Court Frees Rose Njeri, Slams Baseless Cybercrime Charges
Legal Case Ongoing
The matter is currently before Justice Chacha Mwita, with the next hearing scheduled for October 27, 2025. The CA contends that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate how their constitutional rights were breached.
“The safety of Kenyans and the stability of the nation had to be prioritized,” the CA concluded. “This was not censorship, but responsible regulation under the law.”
