• Home
  • About us
  • People
  • Blog
  • News
  • Video
  • Webinars
  • Seminars
  • Podcasts
  • Publications
    • Journal Articles
    • Working Papers
    • OxHRH Annual Report
    • Books & Chapters
    • U of OxHRH Journal
  • Events
  • Journal
  • GDPR Compliance
  • Home
  • Home OHRH
  • Media
  • Search
  • Test page
  • Publications
  • About us
  • News
  • A big page
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Site Map
  • Legal
  • Event archive
  • Blog
    • Comments Policy
    • Contribute to the Blog
  • Events
  • Journal
  • People
  • publications test
  • Publications New
    • Inner Publications Landing
  • #16346 (no title)
Oxford Human Rights Hub logo
  • Home
  • About us
  • People
  • Blog
  • News
  • Media
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Journal

Kenyan High Court’s Rafiki Judgment fails to Apply Proportionality Analysis

Alvin Attalo - 23rd June 2020
OxHRH
Constitutions Institutions and Nation Building | Equality and Non-Discrimination
Image Credit, Tatiana Tor via Flickr, used under a creative commons license available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

The Rafiki case concerns the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression due to the censorship of a film with scenes depicting women in a same-sex relationship. Upholding the censorship, the Kenyan High Court failed to apply a proportionality analysis – – sanctioning an unjustified limitation of the right to freedom of expression where there was a less restrictive means to achieve its purpose.

The facts of this case are that the Petitioners submitted a film called “Rafiki” to the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) for examination and rating. The KFCB directed the Petitioner to edit the film, remove scenes of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘lesbianism’ and resubmit it for classification. The KFCB argued that the scenes violated Kenyan law. The Petitioners refused to do so. In response, the KFCB classified the film as restricted and banned its exhibition and distribution in Kenya. The Petitioner sued the KFCB for violating the right to freedom of expression under Article 33 of the Kenyan Constitution. They also challenged the legality of the Films and Stage Plays Act as well as the Kenya Film Guidelines 2012.

According to the Petitioners, the right to freedom of expression, could only be limited under Article 24, which requires that all limitations on rights must be provided by law, serve a legitimate aim and be proportionate and strictly necessary in an open and democratic society as well as Article 33 (2) of the Kenyan Constitution, which prohibits speech that exalts propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech, advocacy for hatred that is grounded on discrimination as well as ethnic incitement, the vilification of others or incitement to cause harm. The Petitioner argued that the KFCB’s decision did not meet the standard set in Articles 24 and 33(2).

KFCB argued that it initially wanted to classify the film as (Adults only 18) but classified it as “restricted” due to the petitioner’s failure to heed to KFCB’s recommendation. The petitioners argued that the film ban failed to meet the proportionality test as there were other means through which children could be protected without necessarily limiting the right to freedom of expression. For example, the Petitioner suggested that an age restriction of “18” would have been a proportionate means to realise their stated purpose.

Rejecting these arguments, the court noted that freedom of expression is not a non-derogable right. Further, it held that Article 33(2) was not exhaustive in its prescription of the limitations on free speech. According to the court, a holistic interpretation of the constitution was needed to fully comprehend the limitations imposed by the Constitution on free speech. It further stated that Article 33 should be read in consonance with Article 53, on the best interests of the child and Article 55(d) on the protection of the youth from harmful cultural practices.

The court further stated that the ban pursued a legitimate aim. Citing R v. Oakes, it stated that measures employed to limit rights must be high to ensure that objectives that are discordant with a free and democratic society do not gain protection. This threshold, according to the court, was met by Sections 16(4) and 17 of the Film and Stage Plays Act which disapprove of content that offends decency or is undesirable in the public interest and protect children from harmful, indecent, age-inappropriate content respectively.

As to whether the limitation was necessary in a democratic society, the court cited Near v. Minnesota, stating that there were exceptions to the prior restraint doctrine and that the adoption of a system of prior administrative classification as a means of limiting freedom of expression was legal even though the onus of proving that the limitation fell within the scope of exceptions lay with the State. The court, therefore, rejected the Petitioner’s argument that the use of prior classification was a form of censorship and a violation of the right of expression that was unnecessary in a democratic society. The court also indicated that it was cognizant of the fact that Kenyan societal values and culture are different from those of other countries and that the margin of appreciation doctrine granted a State leeway in determining what constitutes a pressing social need that deems it necessary to limit a right or freedom.

While purporting to apply a proportionality analysis, the court failed to consider whether the movie ban was the least restrictive means for the KFCB to achieve its aims. Thus, the reference to R v. Oakes seems to have been a selective citation of this authority – neglecting the proportionality test advanced therein. It, therefore, failed to consider whether the measure taken by KFCB was the least restrictive measure available. More broadly, the acceptance of the KFCB’s stated aims is emblematic of a larger issue –  the failure to recognise and protect LGBT rights in Kenya.

Author profile

Alvin Attalo is a lawyer with a Bachelor of Laws degree from Moi University School of Law, Kenya. He has a keen interest in Transnational law with a specific focus on international human rights, refugee law and international criminal law. Alvin is also an expert on matters EAC Treaty Law and Regional Integration, having handled a number of assignments pertaining the same in the East African Community.

Citations

Alvin Attalo, ‘Kenyan High Court’s Rafiki Judgment fails to Apply Proportionality Analysis’ (OxHRH Blog, June 2020) <http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/kenyan-high-courts-rafiki-judgment-fails-to-apply-proportionality-analysis/>

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related blog posts

Oxford Law Faculty Equality and Diversity Lecture 2020: Professor Kendall Thomas
The Tune Goes On: Appointments to Tribunals Must Adhere to The Two-Thirds Gender Rule
Can trans children consent to puberty blocking drugs? The High Court of England and Wales doubts it.

Related events

New Oxford vs Cambridge Moot Court Case Competition on Disability Law
External

Related news

Discussion on Constitutional and Civil Liberties Violations in Kashmir – 11 October 2019, Oxford Law Faculty

Contact Us

oxfordhumanrightshub@law.ox.ac.uk

Oxford Human Rights Hub
The Faculty of Law, University of Oxford,
St Cross Building,
St Cross Road,
Oxford OX1 3UL

© 2021 Oxford Human Rights Hub | Site by One


Sign up for the OHRH Newsletter

Your email address*:

New email sign up
reCAPTCHA
* Find out how we use your data