NAIROBI, Kenya – The case of American journalist Margot Kiser Jones, who is challenging Kenya’s decision to bar her from the country, has drawn renewed attention to the treatment of foreign journalists and the transparency of immigration decisions.
The International Press Association of East Africa (IPAEA), in a statement dated Wednesday, October 21, expressed concern over Kiser’s account of her removal from Kenya and her subsequent refusal of entry, urging the government to explain its actions.
Kiser, who reported on the Shakahola massacre trial, has sued the Ministry of Interior and the Directorate of Immigration, challenging the decision that classified her as a prohibited immigrant and seeking to return to Kenya, according to recent media reports.
Residency Permit at Centre of Dispute
One of the central issues in the dispute is the reported issuance of a Class K residency permit to Kiser after authorities had designated her a prohibited immigrant.
According to reports published this week, Kiser received a three-year residency permit in February 2026, despite the earlier immigration decision. She argues that the authorities did not disclose the intelligence report said to underpin the restrictions imposed on her.
The sequence has raised questions about the basis for the prohibition and the relationship between the immigration designation and the later permit.
Kiser says authorities cited concerns that her activities threatened Kenya’s moral fabric and national security but did not provide evidence explaining the allegations. The government’s full case and the court’s determination will be important in establishing the legal basis for the decision.
Journalist Links Case to Shakahola Reporting
Kiser had been covering the Shakahola tragedy, in which followers of preacher Paul Mackenzie died after being subjected to extreme fasting practices.
She also says she reported concerns to Children’s Services about the treatment of Mackenzie’s young children. However, she has not established that her reporting was the reason for the immigration action.
The Shakahola case returned to national attention this week after the High Court found Mackenzie and 30 co-accused guilty in the murder case involving 191 victims, including 190 children.
Kiser’s work on the case forms part of the context surrounding her concerns, but a direct connection between her reporting and the immigration decision remains unproven.
IPAEA Calls for Explanation
In its statement, IPAEA said it was alarmed by Kiser’s account that officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and armed police arrived at her Mombasa residence, seized electronic devices and took her away without access to a lawyer or her son.
Kiser says she was taken to Nairobi and placed on a flight bound for New York but disembarked in Dubai, where she stayed outside Kenya.
The association described the reported treatment as a threat to journalists’ ability to work safely and called on the government to explain its actions and restore Kiser’s rights as a journalist.
The claims about the circumstances of her removal are Kiser’s account and have not, on the information available, been established by a court.
Conflicting Accounts of the Timeline
There is also a discrepancy in publicly reported accounts of when Kiser was removed from Kenya.
The IPAEA statement places the operation at her Mombasa home on October 10, 2025, followed by an attempted return on March 8, 2026. However, recent Kenyan media reports describe her deportation to Dubai as having occurred on March 8, 2026.
Kiser has separately disputed a Daily Nation account that she remained in Kenya for about six months after being declared a prohibited immigrant, saying she stayed outside the country following her removal until her attempted return.
The timeline and the circumstances surrounding the immigration decision remain matters requiring clarification as the legal challenge proceeds.
The case places the focus on the information authorities relied upon, the reasons for the later residency permit and whether the procedures used complied with Kenyan law and constitutional protections.
For IPAEA, the wider concern is whether journalists can investigate matters of public interest without facing unexplained restrictions. The court proceedings may provide a clearer account of the government’s reasons and whether Kiser’s rights were violated.
