By Mitchel Adhiambo, Nairobi
The High Court in Milimani has suspended a controversial directive issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) that sought to bar television and radio stations from airing live footage of Wednesday’s nationwide anti-government protests marking the one-year anniversary of the Gen Z uprising.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday afternoon, Justice Chacha Mwita issued a conservatory order halting the enforcement of the CA’s directive with immediate effect.
“A conservatory order is HEREBY ISSUED suspending, with immediate effect, the DIRECTIVE Ref No. CA/CE/BC/TV90A, or any other directive issued by the Communications Authority of Kenya to all television and radio stations directing them 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 stated.
The judge also directed that any broadcast signals that may have been switched off as a result of the directive be restored immediately. Additionally, the court allowed the order to be served through email, newspaper publication, or via live broadcast, to ensure broad public awareness.
The CA had earlier on Wednesday issued the directive citing unspecified national security concerns. It warned that failure by media houses to comply would lead to regulatory sanctions, including the suspension or revocation of broadcasting licenses and disabling of transmission signals.
“This directive was swiftly followed by police raids on major broadcast transmission sites of Citizen TV, NTV, and KTN, leading to the unlawful shutdown of their free-to-air services,” read a joint statement by civil society and media rights groups.
The CA, through Director General David Mugonyi, invoked the Kenya Information and Communications Act and constitutional clauses on media regulation and incitement. Mugonyi cited Article 33(2), which prohibits incitement to violence and hate speech, and argued that unfiltered, real-time coverage could potentially trigger unrest or escalate unlawful conduct.
He further cited Article 34(1), which guarantees media freedom but restricts state control, and Section 461 of the Communications Act, which grants CA the power to enforce compliance among broadcasters.
The directive, however, sparked immediate backlash from human rights defenders, journalists, and lawyers, who accused the CA of acting beyond its mandate and stifling press freedom under the guise of security.
“This is a blatant attempt to gag the media and deny Kenyans their right to information,” said Mercy Mwangangi of the Kenya Media Freedom Alliance. “It’s unacceptable in a democracy.”
The protests, which took place in major towns and cities including Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisii, Eldoret, Nakuru, and Nyeri were held to commemorate one year since the historic Gen Z-led demonstrations against the 2024 Finance Bill.
The youth uprising saw thousands march on Parliament, demanding accountability, lower taxes, and protection of civil liberties. The protests left dozens dead and sparked widespread public anger over police brutality and state excesses.
Thousands of mostly young protesters again took to the streets, waving placards and chanting slogans calling for justice and reform.
In several areas, clashes between demonstrators and anti-riot police were reported, with officers firing tear gas and engaging in running battles. Video footage shared online showed heavy-handed police tactics, echoing the events of 2024.
The timing of the CA’s directive , coming just hours before the planned demonstrations was seen as a deliberate attempt to prevent real-time exposure of any state overreach or human rights violations.
Media houses that defied the order risked being pulled off air. Several outlets confirmed that their signals had been interfered with intermittently during morning broadcasts.
Justice Mwita’s ruling is now being hailed as a victory for press freedom and public accountability. The court will hear the petition challenging the legality of the CA’s directive on July 2.
Legal analysts say the case could set a critical precedent on the balance between media freedom and state regulation, especially in times of political unrest.
