Media fraternity now files case seeking review of oppressive Acts

By KURIAN MUSA

Kenya: The media fraternity has filed a case to challenge the newly enacted media law.

Journalists, through the Kenya Union of Journalists, Kenya Editors Guild (KEG) and Kenya Correspondents Association (KCA), want the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Act 2013 rendered unlawful.

KEG Chair Macharia Gaitho faulted the move by Information Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i to appoint members of the Media Council without consulting stakeholders.

He was speaking shortly after the case was filed at the constitutional and human rights division of the court.

Gaitho was flanked by his deputy David Ohito and KCA Chairman William Oloo Janak.

The media fraternity represented by senior counsels James Orengo and Paul Muite have filed the case seeking to declare President Uhuru Kenyatta’s signing into law the Bill, a compromise to press freedom.

Judge Mumbi Ngugi certified the case urgent and directed that it be heard today.

Muite and Orengo told the Press that they would be ready to continue with handling the case as per the judges’ directions.

“Kenya Information and Communications (Amendments) Act 2013 is unconstitutional and unlawful and therefore null and void,” reads part of the application.

The KICA Act, according to the journalists, is in violation of the Constitution. Ohito said: “We believe in the court’s ability to dispense justice in a fair manner and allow the media to operate freely as per the Constitution.”

The journalists said violation of the Constitution and the Standing Orders denied the petitioners the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law as sovereignty, democracy, human dignity, equity, inclusiveness and the supremacy of the law underpin the Standing Orders.

They also faulted some sections of the Media Council Act 2013 as violating article 33 of the Constitution.

“It is discriminative and limits the rights and freedoms of the petitioners, journalists and media practitioners and thus curtails the right to equality,” reads a section of the petition.

Among other contested issues in the petition, are the right to fair hearing particularly on matters of criminal justice and penal sanctions.

These are: protection against double jeopardy, right to an advocate of choice, right to silence, right to presumption of innocence and the application of the Evidence Act and the Rules of Evidence.

Fair hearing

The applicants further ask the court to find that the Communications and Multimedia Tribunal cannot afford the petitioners or journalists and the media practitioners a fair hearing as an independent and impartial body.

“There is no requirement for the alleged offender to be provided with or informed in advance of the evidence the Communications and Multimedia Tribunal intends to rely on,” state the petitioners.

In the suit, the court is being asked to review the KICA Act which provides for a double jeopardy as the Media Council Act 2013 establishes a concurrent and non-exclusive process.

The Standard Group, Nation Media Group and the Royal Media Services also filed a similar suit seeking the interpretation of the freedom of the media. “We expected to be heard this afternoon, but the judge had an appointment with the doctor,” Muite said.

Orengo said: “We cannot resolve our own individual identities without the freedom of the press. The process of enacting the two Bills into law was flawed.”

And Gaitho said the case would be pursued to its logical conclusion.

“KEG has not nominated anybody to the vacancies in the Media Council. I have written to the Cabinet secretary concerned asking him to table any letter purporting that we have endorsed anyone,” Gaitho said.