Kenya recently witnessed a significant escalation in tensions between the government and civil society following a government-imposed ban on live media coverage of nationwide protests marking the one-year anniversary of the deadly 2024 anti-tax demonstrations. The ban, enforced by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), triggered widespread condemnation from activists, journalists, media houses, and legal experts, who warned of legal action and decried the clampdown as unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental freedoms. This analysis synthesizes all available information, statistics, and stakeholder statements to provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation and its broader implications.
Background: The Protests and Government Response
On June 25, 2025, thousands of Kenyans took to the streets across most of the country’s 47 counties to commemorate the anniversary of last year’s anti-tax protests, which had resulted in at least 60 deaths. The current demonstrations were further fueled by outrage over the recent death of a blogger, Albert Ojwang, who suffered severe injuries while in police custody following a complaint by a senior police official.
The protests turned violent in several areas, with Amnesty Kenya reporting that 16 people died from gunshot wounds believed to have been inflicted by police officers during the demonstrations. Law enforcement used tear gas and water cannons to disperse crowds, and Reuters documented numerous injuries among protesters due to clashes with police. Meanwhile, looting and arson caused significant property damage in central Nairobi, with smoldering buildings and charred debris marking the aftermath of the unrest.
The Media Ban and Broadcast Blackout
In the midst of the protests, the Communications Authority of Kenya issued a directive ordering
“all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations forthwith”
, warning of unspecified regulatory sanctions for non-compliance. The CA cited constitutional provisions—specifically Articles 33(2) and 34(1) of the Kenyan Constitution and Section 46I of the Kenya Information and Communications Act of 1998—alleging that live broadcasts could amount to “propaganda for war” and “incitement to violence”.
Following the directive, police and CA officials switched off the broadcast signals of several major privately owned media houses, including NTV, K24, and KTN. However, some stations continued to share content online and on social media platforms. The sudden blackout also coincided with a digital clampdown that included throttling internet speeds and blocking access to the Telegram messaging app, which is widely used for protest coordination and information sharing.
Stakeholder Reactions and Legal Challenges
The ban and blackout drew swift and forceful condemnation from a broad coalition of civil society groups, media organizations, and legal experts. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed alarm over the ban and the injuries sustained by journalists covering the protests. Angela Quintal, CPJ Regional Director, stated,
“Restricting protest coverage sends a clear message that President William Ruto’s government is not committed to democratic values or the constitutional freedoms he has vowed to protect.”
She called for investigations into attacks on journalists, accountability for perpetrators, and the rescinding of the broadcast ban.
The Law Society of Kenya, along with the Police Reforms Working Group and Kenya Medical Association, issued a joint statement condemning the CA’s directive as a
“misinterpretation of constitutional provisions and a dangerous step towards suppressing fundamental freedoms.”
They emphasized that live broadcasts of protests, even those involving sporadic violence, do not equate to incitement or propaganda for war. Rather, live coverage is essential for transparency, enabling citizens to stay informed and counter misinformation. The statement also highlighted the ban’s negative impact on emergency medical response and the right to safety.
Civil society organizations, including the Kenya Editors’ Guild, challenged the ban in court, citing a November 2024 High Court ruling that found the CA lacked constitutional authority to set or enforce media standards. The Law Society of Kenya secured High Court orders directing the immediate restoration of broadcast signals, underscoring the judiciary’s role in protecting media freedom.
Media companies also voiced their opposition. Standard Media Group condemned the shutdown of their channels as “illegal and unconstitutional” and vowed to sue any signal carrier that cuts off their broadcasts without lawful justification. Nation Media Group, owner of NTV, decried the government’s interference with editorial independence6.
The Digital Clampdown and Internet Restrictions
Alongside the broadcast ban, the government imposed restrictions on internet access and blocked Telegram, which affected millions of Kenyans. Telecommunications companies such as Safaricom PLC, Jamii Telecommunication Ltd, and Liquid Intelligent Technologies complied with government orders to throttle internet speeds and restrict access to Telegram, despite a High Court injunction prohibiting interference with internet access pending a constitutional petition.
This digital clampdown was widely condemned as a violation of constitutional rights, including freedom of expression (Article 33), freedom of the media (Article 34), access to information (Article 35), freedom of association (Article 36), and the right to peaceful assembly (Article 37). Civil society groups described these measures as a continuation of a troubling pattern of internet shutdowns and media restrictions witnessed in Kenya over the past year, including the first total internet shutdown in June 2024 and previous Telegram blockages.
Impact on Journalists and Press Freedom
The protests saw at least two journalists injured while covering the events. NTV reporter Ruth Sarmwei was hospitalized after being hit on the leg by an unknown projectile while interviewing protesters in Nakuru. David Gichuru, a photojournalist with Standard Media Group, was struck by a stone hurled by a protester in Nairobi.
The CPJ and other press freedom advocates have called on Kenyan authorities to investigate these attacks and hold those responsible accountable. The clampdown on live coverage and the targeting of journalists have raised serious concerns about the shrinking space for independent journalism and the government’s commitment to democratic principles.
Government and Police Stance
The Communications Authority of Kenya did not respond to requests for comment on the ban or the broadcast shutdown. Police spokesperson Muchiri Nyaga declined to comment on the protests, casualties, or the shootings reported by Amnesty Kenya.
Meanwhile, the Kenyan Interior Minister accused protesters of attempting a coup during the demonstrations, framing the unrest as a threat to national security. This rhetoric has been used to justify the heavy-handed police response and the clampdown on media and digital communications.
Broader Context and Significance
The events in Kenya reflect a broader global challenge where governments facing mass protests increasingly resort to restricting media freedom and digital communications to control narratives and suppress dissent. The Kenyan government’s actions have sparked a debate about the balance between maintaining public order and upholding constitutional rights.
The ban on live coverage and internet restrictions undermine transparency, hinder accountability for security forces, and limit citizens’ ability to access reliable information during critical moments. The judiciary’s intervention in ordering the restoration of broadcast signals is a crucial check against executive overreach.