Siaya: A former journalist's bid to have the court order the Media Council of Kenya (MCK) pay him for alleged defamation and slander has been dismissed. In the ruling, Siaya resident magistrate, Jacob Punga Mkala, also ordered the former journalist, Josiah Odanga, to bear the cost of the suit that he filed on 24th May, 2024.

According to Kenya News Agency, magistrate Mkala delivered the judgment virtually, noting that the plaintiff, Odanga, did not make a case against the defendant on a balance of probability. 'From the analysis of evidence placed before me, it is my holding that the plaintiff has not made out a case against the defendant on a balance of probability,' said the magistrate, adding that 'having considered the evidence and the case laws presented before me, and having found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on a balance of probability, I find the only order commending itself is that of dismissal of the suit.'

Odanga, formerly of The Star newspaper based in Siaya, had sued the MCK seeking a permanent injunction directed at the media regulatory body from defaming, or in any way slandering or publishing any defamatory or untrue statements against him. He sought general damages for slander, exemplary damages for defamation, aggravated damages for defamation, and costs of the suit.

In his plaint, Odanga stated that the MCK issued a press statement on 23rd January, 2024, condemning him over an alleged unbecoming behavior following a fight involving him and other colleagues on 20th January, 2024, during a function at Karariw Primary School in Gem constituency. He argued that the statement did not underscore that the matter was under investigation by the police.

Odanga further claimed that the MCK issued a second press statement on 25th January, 2024, stating that he had engaged in a fight for handouts, and subsequently cancelled his journalism license, leading to his suspension from duty. However, the MCK denied the allegations of defamation, asserting that the press statement was issued after all parties involved in the incidents were interrogated and their views recorded, thus validating the facts as stated by the parties themselves.

The MCK told the court that the press statement was limited to the conduct of the plaintiff and his accomplices in their roles as media personalities. Any such misconduct in their line of duty is subject to the defendant's scrutiny and sanction. The media council further stated that under section six of the Media Council Act (Cap 411B), it is mandated to develop and regulate ethical and disciplinary standards for journalists, media practitioners, and media enterprises, and to facilitate resolution of disputes between the government and the media, the public and the media, and intra-media among others.

The MCK maintained that the statements were justified and were issued after interviews and interrogations of all parties involved in the incident, and were not defamatory in nature. In his judgment, magistrate Mkala acknowledged both statements by the defendant, noting that the press statement issued on 23rd January, 2024, condemned the fighting incident and assured the public that investigation was ongoing.

'Even though the plaintiff alleges that he was defamed, a look at this statement does not appear to this court defamatory in any way,' said Mkala, adding that 'it condemns fighting between journalists that had occurred. It therefore refers to a true event that occurred and neither does it mention any name of a journalist and specifically the plaintiff.' The magistrate further noted that in the plaintiff's statement, he admits fighting with some colleagues.

'The plaintiff cannot therefore claim defamation when the defendant states the obvious,' said the magistrate. Mkala further elaborated that the second press statement by the MCK communicated the decision of the council to suspend the three journalists involved in the fighting. 'Among other reasons for the suspension was the issue of fighting for handouts. This is what the plaintiff alleges was defamatory to him,' said Mkala, adding that 'at paragraph 42 of the plaint, the plaintiff admits to having been questioned about the issue of handout and having admitted to the defendant that the issue of handout is not uncommon in journalism, having admitted so, he cannot then turn around to claim to have been defamed.'

He concluded that the MCK, in their press statement, was merely making reference to what the plaintiff had admitted.