A growing conflict between the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) and major broadcasters highlights the tension between regulatory enforcement, commercial viability, and constitutional press freedoms.
The most recent incident occurred on March 27, 2026, when the Communications and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal rejected an appeal by Standard Group PLC. This ruling allows the CA to proceed with the revocation of six broadcasting licenses for unpaid fees totalling US$375 123.
The tribunal emphasised that compliance with the Kenya Information and Communications Act’s statutory obligations is essential, regardless of the financial struggles faced by media organisations.
Standard Group contends that the outstanding fees are due to delayed payments from the Government of Kenya, which owes them over US$ 9 million for advertising and media services. They claim this situation creates a contradiction: one part of the government deems them non-compliant, while another part fails to meet its financial commitments, as stated by acting CEO Chaacha Mwita.
This case is indicative of a larger regulatory trend. In 2025 alone, the CA revoked 75 licenses across television, radio, and signal distribution sectors, primarily due to non-compliance. The significant number of revocations, formalised through published gazette notices, suggests that the regulator is becoming increasingly stringent in maintaining order in a sector often characterised by inconsistent compliance.
The CA defends its stance on the principle that the broadcast spectrum is a public asset that requires rigorous oversight. The tribunal supported this view, asserting that license fees and levies must take precedence over private financial disputes or cash flow obstacles.
However, this enforcement push comes at a time when traditional media business models are under considerable pressure. With advertising revenues declining, audience migration to digital platforms, and legacy broadcasters facing liquidity challenges, these license arrears may reflect deep-rooted financial issues rather than willful non-compliance.
The conflict has also extended into editorial matters. In June 2025, the CA ordered broadcasters to stop live coverage of anti-government protests, citing legal and constitutional grounds. This directive met with strong opposition from media houses, which regarded it as an infringement on editorial autonomy and a dangerous precedent for content regulation during politically sensitive times. While the regulator argues that such measures are necessary for public welfare and national stability, critics contend they demonstrate an expanding role for the CA, moving beyond technical oversight to controlling information dissemination.
The Standard Group plans to take the dispute to the High Court, where the legal limits of regulatory authority versus constitutional freedoms will be tested further. Under Section 102G of the Kenya Information and Communications Act, this appeal would automatically halt the revocation process, temporarily protecting the broadcaster until a judicial review takes place.
As this confrontation advances to higher courts, its resolution is expected to influence not only regulatory practices but also the balance between state power and media independence amid economic challenges and political sensitivities. This could ultimately shape the media landscape and impact public discourse in Kenya.
