Two Kenyan citizens have moved to the High Court seeking to stop government officials and state agencies from blocking members of the public from their official social media accounts, arguing that the practice violates constitutional rights and denies citizens access to public information.
In a petition filed before the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court at Milimani, James Ochieng and Olive Ambrose challenge what they describe as a growing trend of state officers restricting access to official social media platforms used for government communication.
The petition, registered as HCCHRPET/E380/2026, names the Attorney General, the Cabinet Secretary for Interior and Coordination of National Government, the Principal Secretary for Broadcasting and Telecommunications, the Council of Governors, and the National Assembly as respondents. The Katiba Institute, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) have been listed as interested parties.
The petitioners argue that many government officials use social media accounts bearing official state branding and verification marks to communicate government policies, programmes and public announcements. However, they say some citizens have been blocked from accessing these accounts, preventing them from viewing updates, participating in discussions, or seeking clarification on matters of public interest.
“Government officials are increasingly using social media platforms as official channels of communication with the public,” the petition states.
According to court documents, the petitioners contend that such actions violate several constitutional provisions, including Article 10 on national values and principles of governance, Article 27 on equality and freedom from discrimination, Article 33 on freedom of expression, Article 35 on access to information, Article 47 on fair administrative action, and Article 48 on access to justice. They also cite Sections 4 and 6 of the Access to Information Act, arguing that citizens have a legal right to obtain information held by public entities and state officers.
The petitioners maintain that social media accounts used by public officials for official functions constitute public forums and should remain accessible to all Kenyans, subject only to reasonable and lawful limitations.
“Once government officials use these accounts for official communication, they become public information channels that must remain open and accessible to all citizens,” the petitioners argue.
They further argue that blocking citizens because they express dissenting views, criticize government actions, or ask difficult questions amounts to arbitrary exclusion from public discourse.
“Citizens are being locked out of official communication spaces simply for expressing their opinions or seeking accountability,” they state.
To support their case, the petitioners have attached screenshots showing users receiving “You are blocked” notifications when attempting to view or interact with certain accounts. They have also provided evidence showing that the accounts carry official government insignia and are routinely used to communicate matters of public concern. The petition further states that attempts to obtain explanations for the blocking decisions were either ignored or met with inadequate responses.
At the heart of the case is the argument that state officers cannot use privately owned social media platforms as a shield to avoid constitutional obligations owed to the public.
The petitioners are seeking declarations that blocking citizens from official government accounts violates both the Constitution and the Access to Information Act. They also want the court to declare that official government social media accounts should remain accessible to all Kenyans, except where restrictions are justified under the law.
In addition, they are seeking orders quashing the decisions to block them, compelling the immediate restoration of access to the affected accounts, and permanently restraining state officers from blocking citizens on the basis of their views or opinions.
The petition also asks the court to declare unconstitutional any interpretation of the Access to Information Act that permits the withholding of public information without meeting the limitations set out under Article 24 of the Constitution.
