VZCZCXYZ0002
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNR #0108 0201216
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201216Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY NAIROBI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8264
INFO RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA 0395
RUEHDJ/AMEMBASSY DJIBOUTI 0003
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 6311
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 3133
RUEHKH/AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM 2286

UNCLAS NAIROBI 000108 
 
DEPT FOR AF/PPD ANYASO, EHRNMAN, WHITMAN, KELLEY; 
IIP Murphy, Domowitz; AF/E Driano 
 
SENSITIVE, SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KPAO KMDR KDEM KE
SUBJECT: President Signs Communications Amendments Act 
 
REF: 08 Nairobi 2850 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  A recent political firestorm over the Kenya 
Communications Amendment Act of 2008 (the Act), while containing 
some trouble spots, in essence provided a positive opportunity in 
which Kenyans once again demonstrated their democratic credentials. 
President Mwai Kibaki signed the Act into law on December 30, 2008 
over the opposition of Prime Minister Raila Odinga, media owners, 
and journalists to certain provisions of the Act (Reftel).  When 
signing the Act, Kibaki acknowledged its flaws and called for 
dialogue.  On January 6 Kibaki ordered the Attorney General and 
Minister of Information to meet with media owners to find a 
solution.  We believe that the dialogue is likely to result in the 
government suggesting amendments to the Act, possibly at a special 
session of Parliament set to begin on January 20.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------------- 
Communications Amendments Act of 2008 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.   (U) President Mwai Kibaki signed the 2008 Kenya Communications 
Amendments Act of 2008 (the Act) into law on December 30.  The Act 
amends the Kenya Communications Act of 1998.  The goal of the Act is 
to regulate better the booming information technology industry 
(e-mail, texting, etc.) and e-commerce activities which were largely 
unregulated by the 1998 Act.  Before submitting the Act to the Tenth 
Parliament, the Minister of Information and Communications Samuel 
Poghisio consulted broadly with media owners and journalists and, 
according to our media sources, promised to amend several 
objectionable clauses (Reftel).  However, the bill submitted to 
Parliament in July 2008 failed to address these issues.  It also 
added provisions expanding the power of the Communications 
Commission of Kenya (CCK) and others which give the Minister of 
Information the ability to influence politically the CCK. 
 
¶3.  (U) Parliament debated the Act in a cursory fashion and passed 
it on December 10, with less than a quorum - which, under 
Parliament's rules of procedure, is allowed if no member moves to 
end debate for lack of a quorum.  Although Prime Minister Odinga 
publicly criticized the Act and blamed his Party of National Unity 
(PNU) coalition partners for supporting the Act, more MPs from 
Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement MPs voted for the bill than did 
PNU MPs. 
 
---------------------------------- 
Kibaki Signs, Then Orders Dialogue 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) On December 30, President Kibaki signed the Act.  His office 
took out a full-page ad in major newspapers acknowledging that the 
Act had flaws, but that the communications field would benefit from 
the regulation provided by the Act.  In the ad, Kibaki called for 
dialgue to resolve problematic provisions restricting media 
freedom.  The signing was followed by an outcry in the media and a 
counter-offensive by the government, including ill-advised pamphlets 
criticizing media owners paid for by the government spokesman.  On 
January 6, Kibaki ordered the Attorney General (AG) Amos Wako and 
the Minister of Information to engage in consultations with media 
owners for the purpose of preparing further amendments to the Act. 
Media owners quickly accepted the offer. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Comment:  The overarching goal of the Act to update the 
regulatory framework for media, information technology, and 
e-commerce is welcome.  At the same time, provisions of the Act 
allowing the government to bring political pressure on media outlets 
are problematic and should be amended.  The Ambassador weighed in 
with the government urging it to engage in dialogue and to affirm 
media freedom.  We believe Kibaki reacted appropriately and 
democratically -- the dominant stakeholders cried foul, and the 
President ordered the AG and Minister of Information to seek 
compromise through consultations.  The media owners' acceptance of 
the offer provides a way out for both sides.  We continue to reach 
out to both sides to encourage a mutually agreeable solution to the 
issues.  If talks progress rapidly, the government may initiate an 
effort to amend the Act at a special session of parliament scheduled 
to begin on January 20.  End Comment. 
 
RANNEBERGER