MPs raise alarm over rules that endanger media freedom
MPs have faulted the government over plans to control media freedom in the country through the introduction of punitive laws.
MPs have faulted the government over plans to control media freedom in the country through the introduction of punitive laws that seek to curtail the press and make the practice of journalism an impossible affair.
Members of the Delegated Legislation Committee of the National Assembly made their position clear during a meeting at parliament buildings with ICT and Digital Economy Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo over the Code of Conduct for Media Practice 2025.
Members of the committee chaired by Ainabkoi MP Samuel Chepkong’a questioned the timing of the media rules that seek to repeal the regulations that have been in existence for the last 13 years.
The proposed code contains 32 clauses compared to the 26 that exist in the current code. Among the contentious provisions in the code is the definition of a claim.
“Claim means any statement, assertion, or representation of fact, opinion, or belief presented as true in a publication, whether in written, oral, or digital form, that is subject to verification unless derived from a privileged or legally protected document where verification is impracticable,” the code says.
The code seeks to implement the Media Council of Kenya Act.
CS Kabogo revealed that the code was generated with the input of the media sector players including media owners and newsroom managers. “This is a document that we fully own with the media. They were part of the formulation of the rules,” he said.
But Mr Chepkong’a warned that “the participation of the media in the generation of the code should not take away your responsibility to abide by the law” that guarantees media freedom.
However, the committee members faulted the inclusion of the words “protected document” saying it is not anchored in any law.
“The word claim has been assigned a different meaning from the one we know. What provision of the law defines this?” asked Kilgoris MP Julius Sunkuli, a member of the committee.
Attempts by Media Council of Kenya CEO David Omwoyo to define “protected document” to include court documents and other government documents “legally obtained” did not convince the committee.
However, Kathiani MP Robert Pukose demanded to know what new ideas the code was introducing as he accused the CS of trying to muzzle the media.
“What new ideas are you introducing by repealing the existing code? These are attempts to muzzle the media in subtle ways,” said Mr Mbui while pointing at clauses 4 (g) and (h) of the code.
For instance, clause 4 (g) states that a journalist shall verify the accuracy of statements and allegations made in public spaces before publication.
Subclause h requires journalists to ensure all claims are verified before publication, “except where such claims are drawn from privileged or otherwise legally protected documents and their verification is impracticable.”
Mr Chepkong’a would later warn the CS that the code has issues that the ICT ministry needs to clear before the committee makes its recommendations that may include revocation of the rules.
“Your own Act states that CS with the recommendations of MCK, may amend the code. You have not shown evidence supporting this,” he said while indicating the various issues in the code.
Section 45 (2) of the MCK Act states that the Cabinet Secretary, on recommendation of the Council, may from time to time amend the code.
The regulations mandate journalists to ensure that opinions, commentaries and editorials are based on verifiable facts. They are also required to call for verification on the accuracy of statements and allegations made in public spaces before publication.
But Kigumo MP Joseph Munyoro, a member of the committee, warned that this requirement will kill the right of journalists to inform.
“This is killing the opinion of a news source. If I have my opinion, why should the media be liable for it? It is akin to banning live broadcasts. Again, what are verifiable sources? If you are on a live show, where does the media get the time to verify what is said?” he asked.
The code has also called for the need to make reasonable efforts to seek comments from any person mentioned adversely in editorial content. This is unless such mention occurs in an opinion or commentary where the underlying facts are already publicly established.
“A person subject to this Act shall present all material sides of an issue being published in a fair and impartial manner, preserve evidence of unsuccessful attempts to contact persons adversely mentioned in a publication and clearly distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact in all reporting,” the code reads.
The code further states that headlines should “accurately reflect the content and context of the subject matter and where they contain allegations, attribute the source or enclose the allegation in quotation marks.”
The code wants to accord equitable treatment to all persons as news subjects or sources and not deliberately exclude any group from news coverage but also take into account cultural and contextual differences in the representation and treatment of persons in media content.
On editorial integrity, clause 8 (f) of the code calls for clearly disclosing editorial content that is sponsored, including the identity of the sponsor, and distinguishing such material from independent journalism.
The code pushes to clearly distinguish editorial content from marketing, advertisements, political materials, or sponsored content, refraining from photographing or recording individuals in private settings without their knowledge unless justified by the public interest.
“Before recording or broadcasting a conversation, inform any party to the call of the intent to do so, unless public interest justifies otherwise,” it states.
Part four of the code provides for the user generated content, use of artificial intelligence and other technologies.
This includes disclosure to the audience whenever artificial intelligence has been used in the creation, modification, or editing of images, videos, or other editorial material.
This is to ensure that artificial intelligence-generated or technology assisted content is reviewed by human editors and approved before publication.