Win for Kenyan Media, Court Rules Criminal Defamation Laws Unjustified

The Kenyan High Court ruled that criminalizing defamation is unjustifiable on grounds that it infringes on freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution.
The court found that the prospect of criminal proceedings and a jail term of up to 2 years for defamation was unnecessary, excessive and unjustifiable.
“The chilling effect of criminalising defamation is further exacerbated by the maximum punishment of two years’ imprisonment for any contravention of section 194,” he ruled.
“This penalty in my view is clearly excessive and disproportionate for purposes of suppressing objectionable or opprobrious statement. The accomplishment of that objective certainly can’t countenance the specter of imprisonment as a measure that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
Kenya High Court rules Section 194 of the Penal Code creating criminal defamation unconstitutional since it limits freedom of expression.
— Ndung'u Wainaina (@NdunguWainaina) February 6, 2017
According to Section 194 of the Penal Code:
Any person who, by print, writing, painting or effigy, or by any means otherwise than solely by gestures, spoken words or other sounds, unlawfully publishes any defamatory matter concerning another person, with intent to defame that other person, is guilty of the misdemeanour termed libel.
Henry Maina, Article 19 Eastern Africa Regional Director termed the ruling as a ‘big win.’
“This judgement is a huge win for freedom of expression in Kenya, and an encouraging step towards respect for human rights. ARTICLE 19 is pleased to see that the threat to freedom of expression presented by criminal defamation laws has been recognised by the courts, in line with the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights,” said Henry Maina, Director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa.
What it means is that, we have one less law to be used to criminalise journalism and freedom of expression and second is that defamation will remain a civil wrong, but not a crime that could earn a journalist a maximum of 2 yeas in prison he clarified.
Victor Bwire, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Programmes Manager at Kenya Media Council of Kenya welcomed the ruling, “Great News especially media.”
Miriam Mbomett, Manager, Legal and Regulatory at the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM Kenya) and with an interest in freedom of expression welcomed the ruling and hoped the court gave directions on how it would be implemented.
“I have not seen the decision yet, but I hope the court gave directions to have the provisions removed in the law by parliament,” she noted.
“Today’s ruling from Kenya’s High Court is an important victory in the fight to protect media freedom,” CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Angela Quintal said. “We call on the government not to contest the ruling and to amend the penal code to safeguard press freedom.”
Last year, Justice Mumbi Ngugi declared that the provisions of Section 29 of Kenya’s Information and Communication Act (KICA) are indeed incompatible with the Kenya Constitution on these grounds, declaring them ‘null and void’.
Section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act (KICA), regarding ‘improper use of a licensed telecommunications system,’ has been increasingly used by state officials to target those communicating online.
Article 19 East Africa had noted that, the terms of the law are extremely vague, including terms such as ‘grossly offensive’, ‘indecent’, ‘obscene ‘menacing’, ‘causing annoyance’ ‘inconvenience’ or ‘needless anxiety’.
The section provides as follows:
A person who by means of a licensed telecommunication system-
- sends a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
- sends a message that he knows to be false for purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person, commits an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty thousand shillings, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.
According to Maina,” We still have similar provisions and Article 19 welcomes public spirited colleagues to identify cases we may use to challenge their constitutionality.”
“The Kenyan government should seek to immediately review similar laws that unjustifiably limit the right of Kenyans to seek, receive and impart information as enshrined in the Constitution of Kenya (2010).”
The Kenya’s constitution recognizes and protects the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom of the media.
However, in the recent past, the country has witnessed the increasing incidences of violation of these rights, including through claw backs contained in new legislation and state practices that continue to derogate and limit these rights.
The judgment arose out of a case filed by Jacqueline Okuta and Jackson Njeru challenging charges of criminal defamation brought against them arising out of Facebook post about a prominent Kenyan lawyer on a consumer protection Facebook page called ‘Buyer Beware’.
About David Indeje
David Indeje is a writer and editor, with interests on how technology is changing journalism, government, Health, and Gender Development stories are his passion. Follow on Twitter @David_IndejeDavid can be reached on: (020) 528 0222 / Email: info@sokodirectory.com
- January 2025 (119)
- February 2025 (191)
- March 2025 (212)
- April 2025 (185)
- January 2024 (238)
- February 2024 (227)
- March 2024 (190)
- April 2024 (133)
- May 2024 (157)
- June 2024 (145)
- July 2024 (136)
- August 2024 (154)
- September 2024 (212)
- October 2024 (255)
- November 2024 (196)
- December 2024 (143)
- January 2023 (182)
- February 2023 (203)
- March 2023 (322)
- April 2023 (297)
- May 2023 (267)
- June 2023 (214)
- July 2023 (212)
- August 2023 (257)
- September 2023 (237)
- October 2023 (264)
- November 2023 (286)
- December 2023 (177)
- January 2022 (293)
- February 2022 (329)
- March 2022 (358)
- April 2022 (292)
- May 2022 (271)
- June 2022 (232)
- July 2022 (278)
- August 2022 (253)
- September 2022 (246)
- October 2022 (196)
- November 2022 (232)
- December 2022 (167)
- January 2021 (182)
- February 2021 (227)
- March 2021 (325)
- April 2021 (259)
- May 2021 (285)
- June 2021 (272)
- July 2021 (277)
- August 2021 (232)
- September 2021 (271)
- October 2021 (304)
- November 2021 (364)
- December 2021 (249)
- January 2020 (272)
- February 2020 (310)
- March 2020 (390)
- April 2020 (321)
- May 2020 (335)
- June 2020 (327)
- July 2020 (333)
- August 2020 (276)
- September 2020 (214)
- October 2020 (233)
- November 2020 (242)
- December 2020 (187)
- January 2019 (251)
- February 2019 (215)
- March 2019 (283)
- April 2019 (254)
- May 2019 (269)
- June 2019 (249)
- July 2019 (335)
- August 2019 (293)
- September 2019 (306)
- October 2019 (313)
- November 2019 (362)
- December 2019 (318)
- January 2018 (291)
- February 2018 (213)
- March 2018 (275)
- April 2018 (223)
- May 2018 (235)
- June 2018 (176)
- July 2018 (256)
- August 2018 (247)
- September 2018 (255)
- October 2018 (282)
- November 2018 (282)
- December 2018 (184)
- January 2017 (183)
- February 2017 (194)
- March 2017 (207)
- April 2017 (104)
- May 2017 (169)
- June 2017 (205)
- July 2017 (189)
- August 2017 (195)
- September 2017 (186)
- October 2017 (235)
- November 2017 (253)
- December 2017 (266)
- January 2016 (164)
- February 2016 (165)
- March 2016 (189)
- April 2016 (143)
- May 2016 (245)
- June 2016 (182)
- July 2016 (271)
- August 2016 (247)
- September 2016 (233)
- October 2016 (191)
- November 2016 (243)
- December 2016 (153)
- January 2015 (1)
- February 2015 (4)
- March 2015 (164)
- April 2015 (107)
- May 2015 (116)
- June 2015 (119)
- July 2015 (145)
- August 2015 (157)
- September 2015 (186)
- October 2015 (169)
- November 2015 (173)
- December 2015 (205)
- March 2014 (2)
- March 2013 (10)
- June 2013 (1)
- March 2012 (7)
- April 2012 (15)
- May 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (4)
- October 2012 (2)
- November 2012 (2)
- December 2012 (1)