MPs grill communications authority over protest broadcast shutdown

The Communications Authority (CA) is once again under sharp scrutiny from Parliament over its decision to switch off live broadcasts during the June 25 nationwide protests, with lawmakers warning that such actions could destabilise the country and fuel public distrust, especially during critical moments like elections.

Members of the Public Investment Committee on Social Services, Administration and Agriculture (PIC-SSAA) took issue with the move, with vice-chairperson and Saboti MP Caleb Amisi leading the charge.

Amisi questioned the Authority’s mandate to interfere with media transmission, arguing that silencing live coverage creates room for speculation and disorder. He warned that the same could happen during elections, with far-reaching consequences.

“Now, we are approaching a very volatile election. Kenyans are wondering, are we going to have a live streaming of electoral results, then all of a sudden, there is a switch-off? That is terrible. It can turn this country into total mess, anarchy. We do not have any other country to go to. I only know one—Kenya,” Amisi said.

The committee was reacting to the blackout that happened on June 25, when many Kenyans took to the streets to commemorate lives lost in last year’s demonstrations.

The protests, and the right to assemble, are protected under the Constitution, making the media shutdown a matter of serious concern to the MPs.

Amisi demanded answers from the Authority, saying such moves have the potential to create confusion and worsen tensions. “My question is, are we going to see you switching off the live streaming of elections the way you switched off the live streaming of protests—and who gave you that mandate?” he posed.

CA Director General David Mugonyi had appeared before the committee to respond to audit queries from the Financial Year 2020/2021 to 2023/2024.

Mugonyi defended the Authority, citing constitutional provisions that limit media freedom when necessary, and pointed to ongoing legal proceedings around the issue.

“This matter being before court, I will not want to discuss anything further than that,” Mugonyi told the committee.

But MPs remained unconvinced. Amisi pointed out that shutting down live feeds has consequences, referencing a past incident where a police officer shot a protester while cameras were rolling.

“If that event was not broadcast live, the country would not have known who shot that young man. Kenyans would not have known who the looters were, had incidents where looters went into supermarkets not been broadcast,” Amisi said.

“We would not be arguing about who the looters are. We would have known those looters. So, the ramification of switching off suddenly has resulted in enormous deaths that cannot be explained. It has left us at the mercy of social media, which we do not know whether it is true or false,” he added.

Committee chairperson and Navakholo MP Emmanuel Wangwe asked CA to respect the principle of separation of powers, but still provide a general update to the committee without touching on the court case's substance.

“For the purpose of this sitting, you set the case in court so that you also go through the principles of separation of powers,” Wangwe said.

Mugonyi explained that two matters related to the blackout are currently before the courts—one filed by Katiba Institute and the Kenya Human Rights Commission, and another by the Law Society of Kenya and the Kenya Editors Guild. He reiterated that CA’s actions are guided by the Constitution and that the Authority's role is to issue licences and regulate the media sector.

Amisi, however, insisted that Parliament has a right to know the contents of court orders and subpoenas, and that hiding behind legal processes was not enough.

Earlier this month, Information Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo told the National Assembly Committee on Delegated Legislation that the broadcast ban was based on concerns over violent content being aired during a time when children were likely to be watching.

“The main reason was because it was during the watershed period. There was a lot of violence that was aired on national TV when children were watching. You realise it went on for a while—as long as it was peaceful—but when the violence became too much, the Committee responsible advised suspension to protect children... It is for that purpose that it was switched off, not for any other purpose,” Kabogo said.

Even so, the committee members said there must be a clear legal framework to guide such decisions in future, stressing the need for consistency and fairness in how such suspensions are handled.