Court of Appeal Halts Wetang’ula’s Defamation Case, Hands BBC Temporary Win in Media Freedom Battle
Kenya’s long-running clash between political power and press freedom has taken a dramatic new turn after the Court of Appeal granted the BBC temporary relief in its high-profile legal fight with National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula.
The appellate judges issued a stay of proceedings in the defamation case filed by Wetang’ula—effectively freezing the High Court trial and handing the broadcaster crucial breathing room in the dispute tied to its explosive 2015 documentary, “The Secret Bribes of Big Tobacco.”
The ruling has revived national debate on media freedom, political influence, fair trial rights, and the lengths to which parties in powerful positions may go to control the narrative in corruption-linked investigations.
BBC Secures a Critical Pause in High Court Trial
A bench of Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Kathurima M’Inoti, and Lydia Achode ruled that the BBC had raised “arguable points” that deserved a full hearing before the defamation matter could proceed at the High Court.
They held that:
-
Denying BBC the opportunity to collect evidence in the UK could compromise its right to a fair hearing.
-
The issues raised touch on cross-border investigations, multinational corporations, and whistleblower-driven claims—factors that require broader evidentiary access.
-
A stay of proceedings was necessary to prevent the appeal from being rendered “nugatory.”
The judgment struck a direct blow to Wetang’ula’s push for an expedited trial, resetting a case that has lingered for nearly a decade and resurfacing questions about accountability in Kenya’s political elite.
Case Stems From Explosive Claims in BBC Panorama Documentary
The dispute traces back to the BBC Panorama investigation “The Secret Bribes of Big Tobacco,” which aired in 2015. The documentary alleged that British American Tobacco (BAT) paid bribes across Africa—including to Kenyan politicians—with Wetang’ula, then a Cabinet Secretary, named among alleged beneficiaries.
Wetang’ula dismissed the allegations as false, defamatory, and malicious—prompting his defamation lawsuit against the broadcaster.
Fight Over Evidence at the Heart of the Appeal
The BBC insists that to defend itself effectively, it needs evidence from the UK, including:
-
Witness statements
-
Corporate documents
-
Whistleblower materials
-
Cross-border investigative records
However, the High Court previously blocked the broadcaster’s request to issue a Letter of Request to authorities in England, deeming it “too broad.”
The Court of Appeal disagreed and has now ruled that denying BBC this avenue risks producing a trial that is imbalanced and potentially unjust—especially given the gravity and international scope of the allegations.
Wetang’ula’s Team Says BBC Is on a Fishing Expedition
Wetang’ula’s lawyers argued that the broadcaster was only seeking delays and hunting for evidence to justify claims it made nine years ago. But the appellate judges found no basis to shut the door on evidence gathering before the main trial.
The decision opens the possibility of:
-
New documents entering the case
-
Key whistleblowers or UK-based officials giving testimony
-
A more comprehensive judicial examination of the 2015 corruption allegations
Media Freedom and Political Power at the Forefront
The ruling has been welcomed by media-rights observers, who argue that powerful political figures must not weaponize courts to suppress journalism or restrict investigations.
The case exemplifies:
-
The challenges journalists face when exposing global corporate corruption
-
The need for courts to balance reputational rights with free expression
-
The importance of cross-border cooperation in complex investigative reporting
BBC Under Global Scrutiny Amid Multiple Legal Pressures
The appellate ruling comes at a time when the BBC itself is facing unprecedented scrutiny worldwide. Only two weeks ago, the broadcaster apologised to former US President Donald Trump over a misleading Panorama documentary edit. Trump’s lawyers now demand USD 1 billion in compensation.
Despite the global controversies, the Kenyan ruling reinforces that even high-ranking complainants such as the National Assembly Speaker must allow a fair evidentiary process before trials proceed.
For now, Wetang’ula must wait as the BBC prepares to pursue its appeal and fight for full access to evidence in England—setting the stage for a renewed legal showdown with major implications for media freedom in Kenya.