Activist’s suit in TV row should be heard

Kenya’s four main television stations on Monday asked the court to allow a suit filed by activist Okiya Omtatah to proceed.

NTV, QTV, KTN and Citizen tv, which control 90 per cent of TV viewership in the country argued that Mr Omtatah’s case was different from a previous one that had been determined by the Supreme Court.

Mr Omtatah wants the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) compelled to reinstate free-to-air television on analogue frequencies before the media houses migrate to digital transmission.

Africa Digital Network (ADN), a consortium owned by the four stations, argued that the suit by Mr Omtatah had raised new issues on consumer rights, which were not initially before the Supreme Court.

They said the case should not be locked out simply because the dispute on migration to digital broadcast had been before a higher court.

FINAL DETERMINER

“The Supreme Court judgment cannot be a final determiner of all the disputes relating to the digital migration. The petitioner’s case is that the Communication Authority has violated the rights of television viewers, which was not an issue before the Supreme Court,” said ADN lawyer Issa Mansur.

The consortium, bringing together the Nation Media Group, Royal Media Services and the Standard Group, further denied claims by Attorney General and CA that the public was represented during the first dispute, saying the consumers’ lobby only came in as an interested party.

According to Mr Mansur, the Consumers Federation of Kenya only supported the case of the three media houses and did not frame any issue on consumer rights to be determined by the court.

The CA and the AG had objected to the suit, saying it was a duplication of what had already been determined and asked the court to dismiss Mr Omtatah’s case. State Counsel Mwangi Njoroge said there was nothing new in the petition, and interests of television viewers were covered by the Supreme Court ruling.

SAME PRAYERS

“The orders were the same ones being sought now. They are the same prayers he is seeking, which were not granted,” said Mr Njoroge.

CA’s lawyer, Mr Wambua Kilonzo said if Mr Omtatah was aggrieved by the decision, he should seek a review at the Supreme Court instead of filing another suit at the High Court.

Mr Omtatah, however, maintained that his application was still alive, and that the court did not consider the rights of consumers who have been treated to a television blackout for more than two weeks after the CA switched off analogue broadcast by the three leading media houses.

“There was no decision on the obligation to protect the poor majority from adverse effects of TV switch-off. My petition is about the viewer whose rights to information continue to be violated,” said Mr Omtatah.

He argued in his petition that the Supreme Court did not order CA to terminate free-to-air television services and that by implementing the ruling selectively, the regulator ended up violating the rights of a majority of Kenyans who depend on the three media houses for information.

Justice Isaac Lenaola will make a ruling on March 10.