For court reports, let’s refer to Judiciary Media Summary first

A widely circulated montage of screen grabs of the main TV stations, featuring many versions of the High Court ruling on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) case, best captured the confusion. 

The 112-page judgment on petitions challenging the nomination and appointment of IEBC commissioners threw the media into a spin, with some making partial interpretations without context and others outrightly getting it wrong. Audiences wanted to know which version was accurate and whose word they could trust.

Under a Breaking News banner, NTV wrongly interpreted the ruling and announced that the court had nullified the nomination of the IEBC chairman and six commissioners. This was corrected later in the bulletin, with the presenter stating: “We want to revisit the breaking news that came this evening, which has caused confusion. We want to put the facts straight.” 

He then gave the correct interpretation of the ruling. A three-judge bench had dismissed a petition that sought to invalidate the nomination and appointment of the commissioners. At the same time, the judges had found that the gazette notice issued by President William Ruto formalising the appointments was unlawful as it had been published in violation of a court order. 

Earlier broadcast was wrong

As expected of a responsible media organisation, the presenter also told his audience the “legal effect” of the ruling. The President would have to gazette the appointments afresh before the team could be sworn in.

The Daily Nation, which rightly interpreted the ruling, was quick with day-two journalism, discussing the full tray that awaited the commissioners once they were sworn in.

Kudos to NTV for quickly correcting the story. However, an admission that the earlier broadcast was wrong, and an apology would have left the audience feeling respected.

This ruling was highly anticipated because of its implications. Kenya has not had a functional poll agency since January 2023, when the term of then-chair Wafula Chebukati and two others lapsed. Four others had earlier ceased being commissioners following the fallout in the agency over 2022 General Election results. 

Without commissioners, the IEBC could not hold by-elections or delimit boundaries. Most importantly, it could not start preparing for the 2027 elections. Already, there was talk that the General Election would not be held in 2027 owing to the absence of a functional IEBC.

Interpret court decisions

The judiciary had such cases in mind when it introduced the media summary – a layman’s version of the court’s decision in “high public interest” matters. The summary, which is released to media and published on the Judiciary’s social media platforms, summarises and breaks down the decision in simple language to make it understandable to most people. It was introduced to cure the problem of misinterpretation, leading to misreporting.

Audiences rely on the media to cut through the legal jargon of the judges and plough through many pages of text to interpret court decisions for them. The media summary lessens this burden for journalists.

In the IEBC case, the summary was released before the 112-page ruling was delivered. It is, therefore, puzzling why the reporters from most media houses did not make use of this document and instead relied on their own understanding of the ruling.

A reference to the guidelines on court reporting, prepared by the Kenya Editors Guild and other media organisations would also have saved them from the embarrassment and confusion. In these guidelines, accuracy is the first rule of court reporting.

For media houses with in-house legal experts, such as NMG, a quick consultation with them saves the day.

***

Still on court reporting, a story published in the Daily Nation of July 15, 2025, titled “When faith row halts a loved one’s burial”, showed a lack of balance.

The two-tales-in-one article started with a narration of the intrigues surrounding a young man’s burial in Kilifi. The High Court ordered the exhumation of the body from a Muslim cemetery where it was buried against the wishes of the man’s family.

This is, indeed, an interesting story of religions pulling in different directions and the resultant protracted legal battles that deny the soul a peaceful rest.

Regrettably, the writer only gave information and allegations contained in the documents presented in court by the man’s family. 

There was no word from the side that was being accused of secretly burying the young man without his family’s involvement.

This is unfair reporting as it does not give the other side a chance to be heard. The writer should have said if the other side had responded to the accusations or given its side of the story. Even if the other side was yet to file, a response should have been sought from the lawyer to balance the story.

The second tale was about a Briton whose case has taken a religious turn, too, after the body was exhumed to determine the cause of death. 

Like the first story, the writer presented arguments from only one side – that of the man’s two sons who have expressed concern over their father’s burial as a Muslim “in spite of him being a Christian”.

Court reporters and editors must watch out for one-sided reporting as it depicts bias by the media platform when ethical court reporting and the code of conduct for journalism practice demand impartiality.

Contact the Public Editor to raise ethical concerns or request a review of published material. Reach out: Email: [email protected]. Mobile Number: 0741978786. Twitter and linkedin: PublicEditorNMG