Editor’s note: In this opinion piece, Kimutai Kirui points out the need to restore civility, order, and accountability in social media spaces. Kirui further explains why citizens exercise public participation and advocacy while citing a successful advocacy case that he filed in an Eldoret court as attention turns to digital actors.
In a decisive dismissal, the Eldoret Law Courts underscored that constitutional freedom of expression cannot be curtailed by injunctions unsupported by law—thereby reinforcing the boundary between legitimate public-interest advocacy and unlawful attempts to silence scrutiny.
We will soon undertake a clear and deliberate separation of substance from noise, fact from distortion, and accountable conduct from reckless rhetoric. The 1998 UN Human Rights Declaration refers to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted on December 9, 1998. It protects the right of individuals and groups to promote and defend human rights without fear of intimidation or retaliation.
It recognises the legitimacy of lawful advocacy, including engagement with state institutions, civil society, and the media—both local and international—as part of efforts to advance public interest and accountability. This right is exercised in good faith and with respect for the rights of others. Therefore, human rights actors, unlike busybodies in political spaces, don’t just raise issues about an OCS, DCI, ODPP, or the magistracy out of the blue. It must be factually, evidentiary and legally grounded.
Matters raised must first be escalated through formal internal channels, including supervisory structures where necessary. Where institutional delays or bottlenecks persist, further escalation through social or mainstream media may be warranted. In this context, advocacy amplifies rather than initiates or disparages and is grounded in documentation, prior engagement, and exhaustion of internal remedies.
Digital actors put on the spot
Public communication is therefore not the starting point of advocacy but often the final stage of a structured escalation process. The allure and transient illusions of social media should not deceive people. When legal processes are duly invoked, and the law takes its course, the consequences are formal, deliberate, and in many instances irreversible!
We have tackled the issue of physical goons within the Eldoret Central Business District (CBD). Attention now turns to digital actors who, whether through pseudonymous or identifiable accounts, engage in coordinated harassment, defamation, and online abuse.
In due course, we will use three individuals whose conduct exemplifies this pattern, based on documented and verifiable activity. Since January 2022, we have been consistently documenting relevant conduct and activities. There is a need to restore civility, order, and accountability in social media spaces. We seek to file a petition in Parliament over the same.
Advocate Vs Oversight
Oversight is most often misused. In jurisprudence, advocacy refers to constitutionally protected public expression by private individuals or civil society actors aimed at influencing discourse on matters of public interest. It has no formal investigative or enforcement authority and is protected so long as it is factual, undertaken in good faith, and does not amount to defamation, harassment, or unlawful disclosure of private information. Oversight, by contrast, is an institutional function exercised by constitutionally or statutorily mandated bodies.
A citizen may use the term “oversight” informally, but in law, formal oversight is reserved for institutions like Parliament, commissions, and investigative agencies with statutory authority.
Citizens instead exercise public participation and advocacy, such as monitoring issues, raising concerns, and petitioning authorities. This is protected, but it is not institutional oversight. The key distinction is authority: advocacy shapes accountability through public discourse, while oversight acts through legal and institutional power.
Oversight carries formal powers of inquiry, enforcement, and accountability within defined legal procedures. Both, however, serve the broader constitutional objective of promoting transparency and restraining abuse of power.
Judy Chepchirchir vs. Kimutai Kirui
Filed on December 16, 2022, at the Eldoret Chief Magistrate’s Court, the petition by First Choice Recruitment and Consultancy Agency and Judy Chepchirchir sought a permanent injunction restraining human rights defender Kimutai Kirui from publishing or disseminating material alleged to be defamatory regarding an overseas recruitment scheme. The applicants cited reputational harm, while the respondent maintained that the publications were grounded in public interest advocacy on behalf of affected job seekers.
The court dismissed the petition with costs, finding no sufficient legal basis to curtail the respondent’s constitutional right to freedom of expression or impose prior restraint in matters of public concern. The dispute arose from allegations that thousands of job seekers lost significant sums—estimated at over KSh 1 billion—through a recruitment programme that allegedly failed to deliver promised overseas employment.
Kirui thereafter undertook advocacy efforts on behalf of affected individuals, including petitions and public accountability engagement. The matter has also attracted investigative attention from agencies such as the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), and the Ombudsman, reflecting broader enquiries into alleged fraud and financial impropriety linked to the scheme.
NB: For authoritative updates, refer to official records of the National Assembly, the Ombudsman, the DCI, and relevant court filings. This is part of our broader advocacy study cases in the region.
Political activists and lobbyists must know that excitement, outrage, and the pursuit of online validation can fuel emotionally driven, dopamine-reinforced behaviour that encourages abusive or disparaging digital conduct. The fleeting gratification derived from ridicule often masks both ethical lapses and potential legal exposure. However, anonymity or emotional impulse offers no legal shield. Conduct amounting to defamation, harassment, bullying or malicious communication remains actionable regardless of the platform or pseudonymous identity used.
There is therefore a need to reassert civility and accountability in digital spaces. The misuse of social media to malign or defame others must be condemned and, where the legal threshold is met, addressed through appropriate legal processes. Against this backdrop, we will soon file a suit touching on these individuals that will serve as a clear and lasting precedent in Uasin Gishu. The number of digital warriors behind a narrative does not make it factual. Truth is established by evidence, not by popularity, political affiliation, or online mobilisation. Likewise, activism is not character assassination.
What is not advocacy nor oversight
Branding someone a “fake activist” or spreading allegations about their private life, sexuality, or medical condition to discredit them is neither advocacy nor oversight. It is irresponsible, unlawful, and potentially actionable. There is a clear distinction between scrutinising conduct and attacking individuals.
Human rights advocacy is concerned with accountability, transparency, and the public interest—not rumour, malice, or personal vendettas. This case will serve as an important benchmark. It will remind many that while social media may create the illusion of collective protection, legal accountability remains individual. The crowd may cheer, amplify, and defend. But when accountability comes knocking, it does not come for the crowd—it comes for the individual.
Courts are guided by evidence, not noise. Today, I wish to address a common misconception among some digital activists and political actors that association with influential persons or activity on social media confers legal immunity. The law applies uniformly. Political affiliation, proximity to power, or online presence does not exempt anyone from accountability, scrutiny, or legal consequence within the framework of the Constitution. Equally, advocacy and public oversight must not be confused with malice. Legitimate concerns about public office or governance are a core component of constitutional accountability and democratic governance.
Human rights work is grounded in evidence, documentation, and structured engagement with relevant institutions—not unverified narratives. Public communication is typically the final stage of escalation after internal and formal channels have been exhausted. The First Choice Recruitment matter illustrates this approach: concerns were first raised with relevant authorities and attempted through institutional and media channels before being amplified publicly after a limited response. In a constitutional democracy, accountability is not hostility, and scrutiny is not defamation. Responsible advocacy strengthens transparency and institutional integrity.
The author is Kimutai Kirui, a Kenyan political analyst and human rights activist known for his work in Uasin Gishu County, where he has championed justice in cases ranging from police brutality to land disputes affecting widows.
Views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of news9.africa.
Discussion about this post