Live update: Senators discuss governors snubbing summons
Premium
Did the ‘Business Daily’ story on Karen mud house breach journalism ethics?
Shibero Akatsa home constructed from mud located in Karen on January 29, 2026. Francis Nderitu
On February 2, 2026, the Business Daily website carried a story of a mud house built in a Nairobi suburb, which has been trending on social media for a while. The newspaper published the story the next day.
The acre of land on which Ms Shibero Akatsa’s house sits in Kerarapon, Karen, is reportedly valued at Sh65 million, a sharp contrast to the simplicity of the mud-walled, iron-sheet-roofed building. This must have piqued the curiosity of the Business Daily writer, Ndugu Abisai, who sought to get the tale behind the house and its owner.
The story, categorised as a lifestyle feature, takes readers to the unique home, and lets Ms Akatsa tell her story — of how, when and why she built the house. It makes for an interesting read, just like the online videos satisfy the eye.
However, the story has attracted the attention of a reader, who says “it contains several elements that appear to violate the Code of Conduct for Practice of Journalism in Kenya. The reader, who requested to remain anonymous, raises four issues about the article: Lack of balance and right of reply, omission of critical context, (invasion of) privacy of non-public figures, and (failure to address) regulatory and land value concerns. We shall consider each of the issues raised.
On lack of balance and right of reply, the reader says: “The article publishes serious allegations of "abuse" against a private individual (the subject's ex-husband) without providing evidence of a right of reply. Journalistic ethics require that any person mentioned adversely be given an opportunity to respond to allegations that could damage their reputation.”
In the article, Ms Akatsa is quoted as saying: “I went through a divorce after living for close to two decades in an abusive marriage”. She describes the home (which she has named the Garden of Eden) as the place where she found healing. While the ex-husband is not expressly mentioned, the journalist (and editor) should have sought evidence of this or left out the detail altogether. Alternatively, he should have reached out to the other party for his side of the story, in the interest of fairness and balance, and as required by both the Nation Media Group’s Editorial Policy and the Media Council of Kenya’s code of ethics. The code states that journalists shall “make reasonable efforts to seek comments from any person mentioned adversely in editorial content, unless such mention occurs in an opinion or commentary where the underlying facts are already publicly established”.
On the issue of omission of critical context, the reader introduces details about the marriage, which she feels explain the dynamics of the relationship. We choose to withhold the information because the article was about the house and Ms Akatsa’s lifestyle, and the so-called critical context would only divert the readers’ focus. It would also introduce extraneous private information of no additional value to the readers.
On the third issue of (violating the) privacy of non-public figures, the reader states that, “by washing dirty laundry in public, the article unnecessarily exposes private family matters to a business-focused audience. Furthermore, although the daughter is now an adult, the public airing of these private disputes serves no clear "public interest" and borders on an invasion of family privacy as protected under Article 31 of the Constitution.
We found no evidence of private information or “dirty laundry” in the article to warrant this complaint. The focus of the story is on the house, and the simple lifestyle that Ms Akatsa has intentionally chosen, not on other family members and their private lives.
On the fourth issue of regulatory and land value concerns, the reader avers that, as a business publication, there is a glaring omission regarding whether this "mud house" structure complies with the Nairobi City County building approvals for the Kerarapon/Karen zone. Such structures in high-value residential areas raise legitimate questions about safety standards and their potential impact on the property value of neighbouring owners.
This concern is indeed valid. Although this was a lifestyle story, the writer should have looked into the Nairobi City County’s building requirements for the area. However, all is not lost as the omission gives the Business Daily team a chance for a follow-up story looking into this. The story would look at not just Ms Akatsa’s property, but many other non-conventional homes in the high-end residential area.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
Contact the Public Editor to raise ethical concerns or request a review of published material. Reach out: Email: [email protected]. Mobile number: 0741978786.
