NAIROBI, Kenya – The government has defended its controversial decision to ban live TV coverage during the June 25 Gen Z anniversary protests, saying it was aimed at protecting children from graphic scenes of violence.
Appearing before the National Assembly Committee on Delegated Legislation on Thursday, Information, Communication and Digital Economy Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo said the decision was guided by concerns over children watching violent images during the watershed period.
“There was a lot of violence being aired on national TV, and the violence was aired when children and such like people are watching TV,” Kabogo told MPs.
He said that although the protests began peacefully, they escalated into violence by afternoon, prompting the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) to issue a directive halting live broadcasts based on expert advice.
“When the violence became too much, a committee responsible for advising me told me there was excessive violence on air,” Kabogo said.
MPs Demand Legal Basis
However, lawmakers pressed Kabogo to clarify the legal foundation for the order. Kathiani MP Robert Mbui challenged the CS to show how the directive aligned with existing laws.
“Situate it so that it is not left to the whims of the CS,” Mbui urged.
Mathare MP Anthony Oluoch added that there must be clear criteria to determine when such restrictions can be imposed.
Kabogo conceded there was a legislative gap. “I should be able to put it in black and white on which circumstances,” he said, revealing that his ministry is finalizing regulations to govern live coverage during sensitive events.
Communications Authority Defends Move
The CA, which issued the ban, also defended the move in court filings responding to a petition by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK).
The Authority argued that the directive was targeted, legal, and intended to prevent incitement.
“The directive was not a blanket ban on media coverage. It only applied to live coverage, which was being misused to incite violence and fuel public disorder,” said CA Director General David Mugonyi, through the firm Koskei Mond Advocates LLP.
Mugonyi insisted that media freedom, protected under Article 34(1) of the Constitution, is not absolute and must be balanced against Article 33(2), which prohibits hate speech and incitement to violence.
He also accused some media outlets of failing to activate profanity delay systems, leading to the broadcast of raw, inflammatory content.
“This does not mean that the Authority directed the broadcasters not to air the demonstrations. Rather, they should not air the live coverage of the demonstrations,” Mugonyi said.
The CA linked the livestream ban to a spike in violence across several towns, including looting and the arson of Kikuyu Law Courts and Police Station.
The Authority also cited international precedents, saying that countries like the U.S., U.K., and India allow temporary media restrictions during civil unrest or emergencies.
“The safety of Kenyans and the stability of the nation had to be prioritised. The directive was in line with both the Constitution and the law, and did not amount to censorship, but rather responsible regulation,” the CA argued.
Court Suspends Directive
The High Court has since suspended the directive after LSK challenged its constitutionality.
During a mention on Wednesday, Justice Chacha Mwita extended conservatory orders against the media ban and scheduled the next hearing for October 27.
LSK is seeking the full annulment of the directive, calling it a violation of press freedom.
