City lawyer Peter Wanyama has hit out at National Assembly Speaker Dr. Moses Wetang’ula, dismissing claims of defamation contained in a demand letter served to him.
In a strongly worded response, Wanyama denied that any defamatory remarks were published, insisting that the words in question amount to fair comment, truth, or honest opinion protected under the Constitution. He faulted Wetang’ula’s lawyers for failing to provide specific particulars of the alleged defamation, including the exact words, the platforms where they were published, and proof of reputational harm.
“Without clear particulars, the allegations are baseless,” Wanyama’s response notes, adding that any attempt to intimidate media voices or critical commentary will be resisted through the courts.
The rebuttal comes after Wetang’ula’s legal team, through a letter dated 3rd September 2025, accused unnamed publishers of circulating false and malicious statements that allegedly injured the Speaker’s reputation. The letter demanded the immediate takedown of the material, a public apology, and compensation, warning that failure to comply would trigger a full defamation suit.
Wanyama, however, countered that freedom of expression is firmly enshrined in Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution, which safeguard the right of the press and individuals to comment on matters of public interest. He emphasized that public figures, especially those holding high political office, must tolerate scrutiny and criticism.
Despite his firm stand, Wanyama signaled openness to fairness, offering Wetang’ula a right of reply that could be published alongside the original coverage but without conceding any liability.
The unfolding exchange has now set the stage for a potential legal battle between one of Kenya’s most senior political leaders and a prominent constitutional lawyer. It also reignites the debate over the thin line between reputation protection and freedom of the press.
Whether Wetang’ula’s legal team proceeds to file suit or accepts the invitation for dialogue and right of reply remains to be seen.
