A Dispute Rooted in the Past
The legal confrontation now before the High Court in Nairobi finds its origins in a series of highly publicized events from early 2018. At that time, Miguna Miguna, a lawyer and political figure, was involved in a contentious standoff with the government, then under the leadership of Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Okeng’o Matiang’i. The government’s position was that Miguna, having acquired Canadian citizenship, had renounced his Kenyan status and was thus in the country illegally. This resulted in his dramatic deportation.
However, multiple rulings from the Kenyan judiciary told a different story. Several High Court judges issued orders declaring that Miguna was and had always been a Kenyan citizen by birth. These courts found that the state’s actions, including seizing his passport and removing him from the country, were unlawful and unconstitutional. A specific judgment from Justice Chacha Mwita in December 2018 condemned the government’s conduct and awarded damages to Miguna. This historical backdrop is the crucial foundation for the current defamation lawsuit.
The Spark of the New Legal Battle
The dormant dispute was reignited on the morning of October 29, 2025, during an interview on Spice FM’s “The Situation Room.” Dr. Matiang’i, then a prospective presidential candidate, was a guest on the program. When asked by host Dennis Aseto about his past actions regarding Miguna, Matiang’i defended his conduct. He asserted that a ruling from Justice Lenaola had prescribed a process for regaining citizenship and that his administration had created a simple form for this purpose.
Matiang’i claimed that Miguna, unlike 200,000 other Kenyans, unreasonably refused to sign this “miserable little form,” choosing instead to “create drama at the airport.” He further stated that a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal had recently exonerated him from accusations of disobeying court orders. These statements, broadcast live, were subsequently clipped and disseminated across The Standard Group’s vast media platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter), reaching an audience of millions.
The Allegations of Defamation
In court documents filed on November 13, 2025, Miguna Miguna contends that these statements were false and published with malicious intent. He argues that the broadcast accused him of renouncing his Kenyan citizenship, a fact he insists is demonstrably false and directly contradicted by previous court judgments. He states that the interview falsely painted him as an illegal alien, a criminal, a dramatic and unreasonable person, and someone unfit to practice law or hold public office.
Crucially, Miguna’s legal filings challenge the factual basis of Matiang’i’s assertions. He points out that Justice Lenaola never presided over his case, that the Court of Appeal ruling was narrow and did not absolve Matiang’i of all contempt accusations, and that the government issued him a new passport in 2022 without requiring the disputed form. The plaintiff characterizes the interview as a deliberate distortion of settled legal history designed to harm his reputation.
A Plea for Urgent Intervention
Faced with the continued availability of the interview online, Miguna’s lawyers filed a Certificate of Urgency. They argued that every additional day the content remained published caused irreparable damage to his reputation, dignity, and professional life as an advocate and author. They requested the court to issue immediate temporary orders forcing the defendants to take down the content and cease any further publication.
The court, however, took a measured approach. On November 18, 2025, Justice Sifuna Nixon declined to hear the matter on an urgent ex-parte basis. Instead, he directed that the application be served on all defendants, requiring them to respond. The judge set a mention date for January 22, 2026, to provide further directions, ensuring both sides would be heard before any interim orders were considered.
The Evidence and the Scale of Publication
The plaintiff’s case is supported by a comprehensive affidavit and a witness statement from Miguna himself, which includes a full transcript of the impugned interview. As evidence of the publication’s extensive reach, the filings provide detailed analytics from November 6, 2025. These statistics show that the video garnered tens of thousands of views and hundreds of comments across platforms like YouTube, X, and Facebook, attached as exhibits to demonstrate the widespread public engagement with the alleged defamatory material.
The Remedies Sought
In his final plea to the court, Miguna Miguna seeks a multi-faceted judgment. He claims general damages for the injury to his reputation, special damages for slander, and both aggravated and punitive damages, citing the defendants’ alleged malice and history of similar conduct. Beyond financial compensation, he seeks restorative justice. This includes a court order for a full and prominent retraction and apology to be published in major newspapers and broadcast on Spice FM for seven consecutive days. He also demands a mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to permanently delete the content from all digital platforms and a permanent prohibition against them repeating the defamatory statements. See more HERE
Leave a Reply