Kenya

• Author: Gitobu Imanyara, Kibe Mungai
• Pages: 287-367

KENYA

BY

GITOBU

IMANYARA

AND

KIBE

MUNGAI

he

structure

of

ownership

and

regulation

of the

Kenya

mass media

cannot

be

readily categorized

as

mainstream, alternative,

and

occa-

sionally

anti-establishment.

To

some extent,

the

failure

of the

Ken-

yan

media

to

stand

for any set of

values, philosophies,

or

ideologies

is

not,

as

such,

a

peculiar weakness,

but a

reflection

of the

state

of the

nation.

For

instance,

the

politico-constitutional structure

of

government

in

Kenya

is a

mixture

of

several theories: executive presidency, Westminster

democracy,

nonhereditary

monarchy,

multi-partyism,

dominant party-

ism,

and

fascism.

All

these ideas manifest themselves,

in one way or

another,

in

political, economic, legal,

and

social expression.

In

theory,

Kenya

appears

to be

whatever

the

observer's

eyes

seek.

But in

practice,

the

presidency

is the

body, soul,

and

spirit

of the

nation

and of

state power.

The

president wields

his

enormous powers directly

and

indirectly; benev-

olently

and

capriciously; palpably

and

psychologically

— the

power

is

real

and

persuasive.1

The

media,

in

practical terms, are,

at the

same time, products,

upholders,

and

apologists

for the

"Big Man,"

or

ruling gang.

The

media,

especially

the

electronic

and

daily press,

do not

espouse

or

advocate spe-

cific

visions

of

society. Like

the

political class,

the

fourth estate

is

symbol-

ically

related

to big

capital interests that

are

largely

foreign.

The

overrid-

ing

concern,

by

those

in

positions

of

authority

or

influence,

for

public

order

and

security

has led to a

narrow interpretation

of the

rule

of

law.

More

often

than not,

the

public interest

— a

euphemism

for the

concerns

of

the

political class

—

prevails when

in

conflict

with individual rights

and

liberties.

INTRODUCTION

T

1.

"Agenda

'97"

63

Nairobi

Law

Monthly 8-16.

287

The

government considers

the

media

to be a

critical lever

of

social

and

political control.

The

structure

and

size

of

media ownership

in

Kenya

ensure

that

the

government's voice

and

views

enjoy

predominance. Except

for

the

weeklies

and

monthlies,

the

Nation Media Group

is the

single largest

media organ beyond

the

direct control

of the

government

or its

apologists.

The

Nation Media Group

is a

public company whose major shareholder

is

the Aga

Khan.

Together with

the

government-owned Kenya Broadcasting Corpora-

tion

(KBC),

the

Nation Media Group plays

a

great role

in

shaping public

opinion. Since

the

majority

of

Kenyans

are

either functionally illiterate,

or

too

poor

to

afford

newspapers, radio

is the

most important public

medium.

In the

urban

and

peri-urban areas, television

is

emerging

as an

important public

medium,

too. Thus,

the KBC

radio

and

televison services

play

a

significant

role

in

shaping

people's

knowledge

and

assessment

of

events

and

political leaders.

However,

KBC is not

impartial.

It

presents biased

and

manipulated

reports

that

are

repetitive

and

unchallenged.

It

also regularly omits from

its

news broadcasts significant political events that

do not

favour

the

gov-

ernment,

or it

demotes

or

delays

their

announcement.2

The

middle class

and

urban workers

are

therefore wary

of KBC

reportage, rendering

the

Nation Media Group their major source

of

information.

In

aggregate,

the

Nation Media Group

has

used

its

privileged position

responsibly.

But the

government

has

largely remained determined

to

pre-

vent

the

Group

from

taking

a

visibly independent position.

The

Group

has

responded accordingly and, depending

on the

political equilibrium

between

the

government

and the

opposition,

it

avoids controversial

and

"radical" ideas.

The

government maintains

a

damoclean hold

on the

Group

through

a

combination

of

threats

and

thinly veiled acts

of

intimi-

dation.

The

April 1994 subversion charges against

a

news editor

and a

jour-

nalist

at the

Nation,

and the

subsequent charging

of

journalist Evans

Kanini

in

1996,

are

good

examples.3

In

1989 Assistant Minister

Shariff

Nassir,

of the now

defunct National

Guidance

and

Political

Affairs

Ministry, stated that "although there

is

press

freedom

in

Kenya,

editors should

not be let to

write whatever they

want."4

2.

"Injustice" (August 1995)

56

Nairobi

Law

Monthly^.

3.

International

Bar

Association,

Report

on the

Legal

System

and

Independence

of

the

Judiciary

in

Kenya

(November 1996)

at 29.

4.

Quoted

in

Article

19,

Truth

from

Below:

The

Emergent

Press

in

Africa

(1991) 442.

COUNTRY

REPORTS

288

Kenya

The

president, ministers, ruling party mandarins,

and

politically

well-

connected businessmen regularly issue warnings

of

banning

and

libel

to

control

and

direct

the

press.

The

excuse they give

is

always that

the

media

have

failed

to be

objective.

The

dilemma

for the

media

is

that

the

govern-

ment tends

to

equate "objective"

and

"fair"

with negative reporting

on the

opposition

parties

and

other

perceived enemies

of the

government

or its

leaders.

In

this way,

the

government seeks

to

influence

the

media

and

cause

their uncritical

submission

to the

state.5

As

might

be

expected,

a

majority

of

the

threats

and

warnings

are

directed

at the

Nation Media Group.

In

particular, President

Moi

has,

on at

least

one

occasion, threatened

to ban

the

Nation',

fortunately,

he has

never gone beyond such threats.

In one

incident,

a

then opposition member

of

Parliament,

Mr.

Njoka

Mutani,

complained

to

President

Moi

about

the way the

media

had

reported

an

attempted rape

of

female

students

by

their male counterparts

in his

con-

stituency. Responding typically, President

Moi

told

him

that,

as an

oppo-

sition

MP, he

should channel

his

complaints directly

to the

Nation,

"which

articulates

the

views

of the

Opposition

and

which

has a

senior

editor

from

the

district."6

The

subtle message

of the

above

statement

may be

lost

on the

non-

Kenyan.

The

point

is

that

the

opposition

is

marginalized.

It is

perceived

by

the

government

as

inimical

to the

national

interest

and to the

relative sta-

bility

that Kenya

has

enjoyed

since independence. Membership

in the

opposition,

or

among

its

sympathizers, suggests

a

lack

of

patriotism

and a

brand

of

radicalism that should invite stigma

from

the

law-abiding citizens

of

Kenya. Bearing that

in

mind,

the

message

to the

Nation

and to

Kenyans

is

quite apparent:

the

Nation espouses interests inimical

to

those

of the

state

and the

general public

— in a

word, subversion

or

possibly treason!

One

effect

of the

prolonged suppression

of the

media

is the

compliant

stance

the

leading dailies have taken towards

the

state. Ironically,

the

media have

felt

constrained

to

rationalize

their

submission

to

intimida-

tion

and

coercion. Thus,

the

media's typical reply

to

criticism

of

their pro-

government

stand

is to

state

that

the

basic interest

of

media owners

is

profit

making,

an

activity that requires public order

and

political stability.

Articulating this view,

a

leading

Sunday

Nation columnist observed:

5. See M.

Ruteere,

Shackled

Messengers:

The

Media

in

Multiparty

Kenya

(Kenya

Human

Rights

Commission)

at iv.

6.

Sunday

Nation

(28

September 1997)

24.

289