By CourtNews Staff Reporter
NAIROBI, Kenya, October 5, 2025 — Embu Governor Cecily Mbarire has suffered another major legal blow after the High Court dismissed her defamation suit against the Nation Media Group (NMG) over a series of investigative reports linking her to high-profile land grabbing scandals.
The ruling, delivered on June 26, 2025, in Mbarire v Nation Media Group Plc [2025] KEHC 9239 (KLR), marks the latest setback in the governor’s long campaign to challenge media coverage surrounding her alleged role in contentious land deals in both Nairobi and Embu Counties.
Justice J.N. Mulwa found that Mbarire had failed to demonstrate that Nation Media acted with malice or published falsehoods, ruling that the stories were based on matters of public interest and therefore protected under Kenya’s constitutional guarantee of media freedom.
“The plaintiff cannot use the courts to silence the press or prevent public scrutiny of issues touching on governance and integrity,” the court stated in its decision.
Background: The Loresho Land Row
Governor Mbarire’s legal battle with Nation Media stemmed from a March 2024 front-page exposé published by the Sunday Nation under the headline “Two Governors Caught Up in Sh2bn Land Row.”
The story linked Mbarire and Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja to a contested 18-acre property in Loresho, valued at over KSh 2 billion, which has been the subject of a 16-year legal dispute involving multiple competing titles and allegations of fraud.
According to the report, Mbarire was accused of interfering in the dispute by contacting former Lands Principal Secretary Nixon Korir on behalf of one of the parties involved. The governor, however, denied any wrongdoing, claiming she was merely seeking clarification on behalf of a concerned landowner.
She demanded a retraction and an apology from NMG, arguing that the publication portrayed her as “fraudulent, dishonest, and ravenous for land.” When the media house stood by its story, she filed a defamation suit seeking damages and injunctive relief to prevent further publication.
Court Rejects Bid to Gag the Media
In dismissing her claim, the court emphasized that Mbarire, as a public official, must tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny than private citizens. Justice Mulwa reaffirmed that investigative reporting on issues such as land allocation, public integrity, and conflict of interest falls squarely within the scope of legitimate journalistic inquiry.
“Public figures must expect their actions, especially those touching on governance and public resources, to be subjected to close examination by the media,” the judge said, noting that there was no evidence that NMG’s coverage was false or reckless.
The ruling reaffirmed Kenya’s jurisprudence favoring press freedom in cases where journalism touches on matters of governance, corruption, and accountability.
Pattern of Controversies
Mbarire’s name has repeatedly surfaced in multiple land disputes across Embu and Nairobi, raising questions about her political and business connections.
In Embu, she has faced criticism over the management of the Mwea Settlement Scheme, a 44,000-acre area claimed by the Mbeere community through the Ngome Council of Elders. Instead of mediating the disputes, Mbarire has at times called for intervention by the national government — a move that her critics say reflects political evasion rather than leadership.
Similarly, her public pledges to reclaim grabbed county land in areas such as Runyenjes have been dismissed by opponents as political theater, pointing to her silence on more sensitive disputes involving influential figures and business networks.
Her detractors argue that Mbarire’s leadership style has been marked by double-speak — promising reform in public while allegedly protecting entrenched interests behind the scenes.
A Broader Battle Against the Press
Governor Mbarire’s case is part of a growing trend where politicians and high-ranking officials seek to use defamation suits to muzzle investigative journalism.
While some public figures — such as lawyer Danstan Omari and Senator Erick Okong’o Mogeni — have previously won damages in similar cases, others, including former Attorney General Prof. Githu Muigai, have seen their claims dismissed for lack of proof.
In Mbarire’s situation, the court concluded that her claims were “without merit,” further reinforcing judicial support for media watchdog roles in a democratic society.
Judicial Independence and Accountability
The High Court’s decision underscores a wider judicial stance that rejects the weaponization of the legal system to sanitize public records. It serves as a warning to politicians attempting to use defamation law as a tool for censorship or image repair.
Legal analysts say the case will likely be cited in future rulings involving public figures who seek to challenge negative press coverage.
“The judgment sends a powerful message that Kenya’s courts will not be used to launder reputations or intimidate the press,” said one legal observer familiar with the case.
Public Perception and Political Fallout
In Embu, reactions to the ruling have been divided. Supporters of Mbarire have dismissed the reports as politically motivated attacks ahead of the 2027 elections, while critics argue that the verdict exposes deeper issues of integrity and accountability in her administration.
Opposition leaders in the county have already called for fresh investigations into the governor’s alleged links to several land disputes, citing the High Court’s findings as justification for renewed scrutiny.
For now, the judgment has left Mbarire with few legal options. Unless she files an appeal, the Nation Media Group’s reporting stands validated by the court — and the governor remains politically bruised by yet another failed attempt to silence the press.
Conclusion: Courts Will Not Rewrite History
Governor Mbarire’s defeat is not just a legal loss — it is a defining moment in her political career. The judgment reinforces the principle that public officials cannot use the judiciary to bury allegations of corruption or impropriety.
Despite her repeated denials, the persistence of her name in land-related controversies continues to haunt her administration.
As the High Court firmly stated through its ruling, “Truth, once exposed, cannot be litigated away.”