CA ordered to reinstate media signals after LSK legal challenge

In a landmark decision, the High Court in Nairobi has issued conservatory orders suspending the directive by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) that had ordered a media blackout on live coverage of the ongoing Gen Z-led protests.

The ruling made on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, compels the CA to immediately reinstate all broadcast signals that were switched off under the directive, citing violations of constitutional rights and media freedom.

Presiding over case number HCCHRPET/E390/2025, Honourable Justice E. C. Mwita granted the Law Society of Kenya’s urgent petition against the CA and the State Law Office, following public uproar over the Authority’s controversial communication, Ref. No. CA/CE/BC/TV90A.

The directive had instructed all radio and television broadcasters to cease live coverage of the nationwide protests that erupted on June 25,2025.

“This matter raises fundamental constitutional questions touching on potential violation of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution and freedom of the Media calling for intervention by this court,” Mwita Stated.

The court made several orders in response to the petition, among them that pleadings be served immediately via email due to the urgency of the matter, that responses from respondents and interested parties be filed within three days, and that petitioners may file a rejoinder within an additional three days. Directions will be issued on 2 July 2025.

“A conservatory order was issued suspending, with immediate effect, the directive to stop live coverage of the demonstrations of 25th June 2025 or any other demonstrations, until the hearing and determination of the application and petition.”

The court further ordered that any broadcasting signals that may have been switched off as a result of the directive be restored immediately. Service of the order may be effected by email, live television broadcast, or publication in newspapers.

The emergency application, filed on the same day the directive was issued, challenged the legality, proportionality, and constitutionality of the media blackout. The swift response from the court has been widely hailed as a strong affirmation of Kenya’s constitutional protections for freedom of expression and the press.

“We are gratified that the High Court has acted decisively. The CA must now obey these orders or face full prosecution — institutional and individual — for contempt,” LSK President Faith Odhiambo said.

Before the court’s intervention, CA Director-General David Mugonyi had defended the directive, citing Articles 33(2) and 34(1) of the Constitution and Section 461 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act.

He warned that failure to comply would attract regulatory action. However, the court has now rendered those claims invalid by reaffirming that regulatory bodies cannot undermine constitutionally protected media freedoms under the guise of state control.

At the core of the LSK’s petition is a clash between CA’s directive and established judicial precedent. In a November 2024 ruling in Kenya Editors’ Guild & Others v Communications Authority & Others, the High Court found CA’s previous attempts to interfere with live broadcasting unconstitutional. The current ruling aligns with that precedent and reinforces the position that media independence cannot be compromised without due process.

Odhiambo was unequivocal in his response, stating, “This directive by CA was punitive, arbitrary and illegal. The reinstatement of signals is non-negotiable — media houses must continue informing the public.”

Civil society groups and professional associations, including the Kenya Union of Journalists, praised the court’s action as a critical step in pushing back against what they termed creeping authoritarianism.

“The decision is emblematic of Kenya’s constitution as a living document, one that protects expression even in difficult times,” said a union spokesperson.

The court’s directive to allow service of the order through email and broadcast platforms highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring maximum public awareness and accountability.

The decision also comes at a critical time, as the Gen Z-led protests continue to gather momentum across the country. Protesters have cited government corruption, punitive taxation, and lack of youth representation as key grievances.

The case returns to court on  July 2, 2025, where the legality of the CA directive will be tested more broadly. In the meantime, this ruling is being seen as a major victory for press freedom and a firm reminder that constitutional rights cannot be abridged by regulatory overreach.