Kenya’s media freedom battle collided with political power again after the Court of Appeal handed the BBC temporary relief in its long-running clash with National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula.
The judges paused High Court proceedings in Wetang’ula’s defamation case, giving the broadcaster breathing room in a dispute rooted in the explosive documentary “The Secret Bribes of Big Tobacco.”
The short win exposes fresh questions about political influence, evidence concealment, and the fight to reveal whether powerful forces want the truth buried or tested through a fair judicial process.
The Secret Bribes of Big Tobacco and the Court Battle for Evidence
The Court of Appeal ruling struck a sharp blow to Wetang’ula’s push for a swift trial. The judges found that the BBC had raised legitimate legal issues that deserved a hearing before the High Court could continue with the defamation suit. This decision temporarily halts a politically charged case that has dragged on for years and continues to shape public debate on corruption, media freedom, and the power of global corporations.
The dispute began with the 2015 Panorama documentary that claimed Wetang’ula took bribes from British American Tobacco. The Speaker dismissed the claims and sued the broadcaster, calling the allegations false and harmful. Since then, both sides have traded legal blows, but the fight over gathering evidence in England has become the central point of tension. The BBC insists that critical witnesses and documents are outside Kenya, and without them, it cannot properly defend itself.
The High Court dismissed the broadcaster’s request to seek evidence in England, calling it too broad. But the Court of Appeal has now taken a different view, ruling that denying the broadcaster the right to pursue that evidence could violate its right to a fair hearing. That ruling resets the case and intensifies pressure on Wetang’ula to face a more comprehensive judicial test.
Judges Question Fairness in Wetang’ula’s Defamation Push
Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Kathurima M’Inoti, and Lydia Achode delivered a strong message. They said that the BBC’s appeal raised arguable grounds that could be undermined if the High Court trial went ahead. They pointed out that a fair trial must allow both sides to access necessary evidence, especially in a dispute touching global corporations and international transactions.
The judges acknowledged that pausing trials is done carefully. But they stressed that Rule 5(2)(b) empowers the appellate court to intervene when fairness hangs in the balance. Their ruling grants the broadcaster a full stay of High Court proceedings until the appeal is heard.
Wetang’ula’s legal team had dismissed the BBC’s request as a fishing expedition. They argued that the broadcaster wanted to delay the case and hunt for new material to justify its 2015 allegations. But the Court of Appeal disagreed, saying that blocking the search for evidence in England risked turning the trial into an unfair process.
Evidence Battle Returns Focus to The Secret Bribes of Big Tobacco
The renewed legal fight places fresh attention on the documentary that caused the storm. “The Secret Bribes of Big Tobacco” explored claims of corporate interference in African governments. Wetang’ula’s alleged link to BAT’s bribery network formed a crucial section of the film. The broadcaster maintains that its reporting relied on whistleblowers, leaked documents, and investigations that stretched across borders.
By pausing the case, the appellate court has revived questions about whether those claims can withstand deeper scrutiny. If the Letter of Request is approved after the appeal, new testimony and documents could reshape the entire trial. It also raises the stakes for political accountability, given Wetang’ula’s powerful position in government.
For now, Wetang’ula must wait as the broadcaster secures more time to fight back.
Global Pressure Mounts on BBC After Trump Complaint
The ruling comes at a moment when the broadcaster faces intense scrutiny worldwide. Two weeks earlier, the BBC apologised to former US President Donald Trump for a misleading Panorama edit that created the impression he encouraged violent action on January 6, 2021. Trump’s lawyers now threaten a USD1 billion lawsuit unless the corporation pays compensation.
The twin controversies place BBC’s investigative brand under pressure. In Kenya, however, the Court of Appeal has affirmed that even powerful complainants must allow fair access to evidence before trials proceed.
