CS William Kabogo defends media shutdown during June 25 protests, says ‘it was to shield children’
The government has defended its decision to ban media live streaming during the June 25 Gen Z anniversary protests, saying the move was necessary to shield children from disturbing 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 government acted within the spirit of the watershed period to prevent children from being exposed to real-time images of injuries, deaths and property destruction aired during the protests.
“Generally, the main reason for switching off was within the parameters of 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,” said Kabogo.
According to Kabogo, while the protests started peacefully, they escalated in the afternoon, prompting the Communications Authority to intervene based on expert advice.
“When the violence became too much, a committee responsible for advising me told me there was excessive violence on air,” said the CS.
However, Kabogo faced difficulty explaining the legal basis under which the directive was issued.
Kathiani MP Robert Mbui raised concerns, saying such actions should be backed by law. “Situate it so that it is not left to the whims of the CS,” said Mbui.
Mathare MP Anthony Oluoch added, “Provide for circumstances when livestream can be stopped and when it can’t be stopped.”
In response, Kabogo acknowledged the legislative gap. “I should be able to put it in black and white on which circumstances,” he admitted.
Kabogo also revealed that his ministry is in the final stages of drafting stricter regulations to govern how media content, especially live coverage, is handled during sensitive national events.
His comments came a week after Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen also accused the media of aggravating the situation during the Gen Z-led protests.
“Media houses became the centre of mobilisation for some of these protesters,” Murkomen said.
The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), which was behind the directive, has also denied allegations of media censorship. In documents filed in court in response to a petition by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), CA Director General David Mugonyi argued the directive was legal, targeted, 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,” Mugonyi, through the firm Koskei Mond Advocates LLP, said.
While affirming Article 34(1) of the Constitution, which protects media freedom, Mugonyi said the right is not absolute and must be balanced against Article 33(2), which prohibits hate speech and incitement.
He further blamed broadcasters for failing to implement profanity delay mechanisms, leading to the airing of raw, inflammatory footage.
“In a nutshell, the directive merely required all broadcasters to activate the profanity delay mechanism,” said Mugonyi.
“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.”
The CA linked the live broadcasts to a spike in violent incidents across Nairobi, Thika, and Nakuru, including looting, arson attacks on the Kikuyu Law Courts, and the burning of Kikuyu Police Station.
The Authority also cited international best practices, pointing to countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, where temporary restrictions on media coverage are permitted during emergencies or civil unrest.
“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 submitted.
The High Court has since issued conservatory orders suspending the directive after LSK challenged its legality. During the latest court mention on Wednesday, Justice Chacha Mwita extended the orders and scheduled the next hearing for October 27.
LSK is seeking a full annulment of the directive, arguing that it is unconstitutional.
Appearing before the National Assembly Committee on Delegated Legislation on Thursday, Information, Communication and Digital Economy Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo said the government acted within the spirit of the watershed period to prevent children from being exposed to real-time images of injuries, deaths and property destruction aired during the protests.
“Generally, the main reason for switching off was within the parameters of 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,” said Kabogo.
According to Kabogo, while the protests started peacefully, they escalated in the afternoon, prompting the Communications Authority to intervene based on expert advice.
“When the violence became too much, a committee responsible for advising me told me there was excessive violence on air,” said the CS.
However, Kabogo faced difficulty explaining the legal basis under which the directive was issued.
Kathiani MP Robert Mbui raised concerns, saying such actions should be backed by law. “Situate it so that it is not left to the whims of the CS,” said Mbui.
Mathare MP Anthony Oluoch added, “Provide for circumstances when livestream can be stopped and when it can’t be stopped.”
In response, Kabogo acknowledged the legislative gap. “I should be able to put it in black and white on which circumstances,” he admitted.
Kabogo also revealed that his ministry is in the final stages of drafting stricter regulations to govern how media content, especially live coverage, is handled during sensitive national events.
His comments came a week after Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen also accused the media of aggravating the situation during the Gen Z-led protests.
“Media houses became the centre of mobilisation for some of these protesters,” Murkomen said.
The Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), which was behind the directive, has also denied allegations of media censorship. In documents filed in court in response to a petition by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), CA Director General David Mugonyi argued the directive was legal, targeted, 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,” Mugonyi, through the firm Koskei Mond Advocates LLP, said.
While affirming Article 34(1) of the Constitution, which protects media freedom, Mugonyi said the right is not absolute and must be balanced against Article 33(2), which prohibits hate speech and incitement.
He further blamed broadcasters for failing to implement profanity delay mechanisms, leading to the airing of raw, inflammatory footage.
“In a nutshell, the directive merely required all broadcasters to activate the profanity delay mechanism,” said Mugonyi.
“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.”
The CA linked the live broadcasts to a spike in violent incidents across Nairobi, Thika, and Nakuru, including looting, arson attacks on the Kikuyu Law Courts, and the burning of Kikuyu Police Station.
The Authority also cited international best practices, pointing to countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, where temporary restrictions on media coverage are permitted during emergencies or civil unrest.
“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 submitted.
The High Court has since issued conservatory orders suspending the directive after LSK challenged its legality. During the latest court mention on Wednesday, Justice Chacha Mwita extended the orders and scheduled the next hearing for October 27.
LSK is seeking a full annulment of the directive, arguing that it is unconstitutional.
Communications Authority
CA
LSK
june 25 protests
william kabogo
June 25 anniversary
June 25 protest
Communication Authority of Kenya
Media ban
Media blackout
Let’s Connect
We’re here to listen, support, and engage with you.
Whether it’s feedback, a request, or collaboration — Hon. Yusuf Hassan’s team welcomes your message.
Office Address
Kamukunji Constituency Office, Nairobi
Call
+254 737 500200, +254 716 667733
“Leadership is not about position — it’s about purpose, people, and progress.”