News from Civsy, based on human monitoring, generative AI tools and retrieval-augumented real time data search

On 23 January 2026, the Court of Appeal in Nairobi delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case over the 2018 ban of Wanuri Kahiu’s film Rafiki. The court held that the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) was wrong to impose an outright ban on the film and found the move disproportionate in light of the Constitution’s protection of freedom of expression, including artistic creativity. While the ruling does not automatically lift the restriction, it confirms that Rafiki may no longer be treated as absolutely prohibited and must instead be subjected to proper classification, such as an adults-only rating, through the statutory appeal process. Kahiu now has 30 days to appeal to the Cabinet Secretary under the Films and Stage Plays Act, which could lead to an age-restricted certificate for Kenyan exhibition.

From Cannes selection to domestic ban

Rafiki, inspired by the short story “Jambula Tree”, follows a romantic relationship between two young women and in April 2018 became the first Kenyan feature selected for the Cannes Film Festival’s Official Selection, screening in the Un Certain Regard section. Shortly after, on 27 April 2018, KFCB banned the film from exhibition anywhere in Kenya, claiming it promoted homosexuality and contained “offensive classifiable elements” contrary to Kenyan law and culture. Kahiu submitted the film for examination and was instructed to remove certain scenes and change what officials described as an overly hopeful ending; she declined and instead asked for classification. In September 2018, the High Court granted a temporary order lifting the ban for seven days to allow Oscar-qualifying screenings, during which more than 6,500 people saw the film in Kenyan cinemas. The underlying petition continued, and in April 2020 the High Court upheld the restriction, finding that the KFCB decision fell within permissible limits on expression under Article 24 of the Constitution.

What the Court of Appeal decided

In Civil Appeal No. E378 of 2020, Justices W. Karanja, F. Tuiyott and L. Achode disagreed with the High Court’s earlier view that the case had been filed prematurely because statutory remedies were not exhausted, affirming that constitutional grievances can be brought directly to court when fundamental rights are in question. They drew a distinction between depicting a same-sex relationship and promoting illegal conduct, concluding that a film that merely portrays queer characters does not automatically amount to advocacy of crime. The judgment states that, at most, KFCB’s concerns could support an adults-only rating, not a total prohibition. The court further declared Section 9(1) of the Films and Stage Plays Act unconstitutional to the extent that it allowed police or appointed officers to use force to stop filming without a concrete threat to life, property or animal welfare, and struck down Section 16(3), which had enabled the state to seize and retain excised footage. These findings limit the scope of direct state interference in film production and confirm that any restriction on creative work must meet constitutional tests of necessity and proportionality.

Broader context and next steps

The ruling sits within a longer history in which film, theatre and media in Kenya have faced control and sanctions through colonial-era sedition provisions, the 1962 Films and Stage Plays Act and, more recently, KFCB’s interventions against works such as Stories of Our Lives and I Am Samuel. Civil society organisations, including the Creative Economy Working Group and regional free-expression groups, have argued that the Rafiki case exposes structural problems in how morality is used as a basis for restricting artistic content. The Court of Appeal did not rule on the underlying constitutionality of laws criminalising same-sex conduct but underlined that such provisions cannot justify a blanket ban on a film that simply includes queer characters. Kahiu has indicated that she will pursue the appeal to the Cabinet Secretary, while there remains a possibility that the Attorney General could seek to challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court. For now, the case file, the unedited film and an eight-year paper trail sit between a regulator that once called Rafiki a danger to public morals and a court that has asked whether depiction alone is enough to keep Kenyan audiences from seeing it at all.

Kenya’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the 2018 ban on Wanuri Kahiu’s film Rafiki was unlawful and disproportionate. The judges held that simply depicting a same-sex relationship does not amount to promoting illegal conduct and said the film should, at most, carry an adults-only rating.

The court also struck down parts of the Films and Stage Plays Act that allowed police to forcibly stop filming and to retain cut footage, significantly narrowing direct state control over film production.

Kahiu can now seek an age-restricted classification for Rafiki through the statutory appeal process, while the Attorney General still has the option of taking the case to the Supreme Court.

#Rafiki #WanuriKahiu #Kenya #ArtisticFreedom #FreedomOfExpression #LGBTQ #FilmPolicy #Censorship #HumanRights #MimetaMemo

References:

Sinema Focus, “I Wanted to Defend the Constitution: Wanuri Kahiu, Rafiki and a Landmark Court Ruling on Arts Censorship in Kenya.”[sinemafocus]
Khusoko, “Court of Appeal Partially Overturns Rafiki Film Ban.”[khusoko]
HapaKenya, “Court of Appeal rules that 2018 ban on Wanuri Kahiu film ‘Rafiki’ was unreasonable.”[hapakenya]
The Star, “High Court upholds ‘Rafiki’ movie ban.”[the-star.co]
Kenya Law, “Wanuri Kahiu & another v CEO – Kenya Film Classification Board & 3 others KEHC 6500 (KLR).”[new.kenyalaw]
Kenya Law, “Ezekiel Mutua & 4 others KEHC 9442 (KLR).”[new.kenyalaw]
MambaOnline, “Kenya: Victory for Queer Expression as Court Rules on Banned Lesbian Film Rafiki.”[mambaonline]
ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, “Film classification board must stop stifling artistic expression.”[article19]
Freemuse, “Artistic and LGBTQ+ Freedoms in Kenya Under Scrutiny.”[freemuse]
Sinema Focus, “Stories We Can’t Tell: The Cost of Censorship in Kenya’s Film Industry.”[sinemafocus]
NGLHRC and allied groups’ social media statement on the Court of Appeal ruling.[facebook]
Mohammed Muigai LLP commentary on the Court of Appeal judgment.[linkedin]