The Media Complaints Commission has dismissed a complaint lodged by Mr Nico Otieno Nissen Magather against Nation Media Group Limited and the Editor of the Daily Nation.
In a ruling delivered on 5 February 2026 in Nairobi, the Commission found that the publication of the complainant’s photograph in the Daily Nation on 18 January 2024 did not breach the Code of Conduct for Media Practice. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety with no orders as to costs.
The photograph, captioned “Kenyans Continue Feeling the Pinch of High Fuel Costs,” showed Mr Otieno walking in worn-out shoes. He argued that the image was taken and published without his consent, and that the caption misleadingly implied he was walking due to economic hardship from high fuel prices. He claimed this amounted to an unwarranted intrusion into his privacy and dignity, exposed him to ridicule, and infringed his rights under Articles 28 and 31 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. He sought a public apology and clarification.
Nation Media Group raised a preliminary objection, contending the matter fell outside the Commission’s mandate and related instead to the Data Protection Act.
They submitted that the photograph was lawfully taken in a public place for newsgathering purposes and used illustratively to report on a matter of public interest. The complainant was neither named nor otherwise identified, and no reasonable reader would interpret the publication as referring specifically to him.
The Commission considered three key issues: whether publication without consent breached the Code; whether the image and caption constituted misleading or unfair presentation; and whether the publication violated the complainant’s right to privacy and dignity.
On consent, the Commission held that photography in public places for legitimate journalistic purposes does not ordinarily require prior consent. Absent evidence of harassment, deception or targeted pursuit, the lack of consent alone did not constitute a breach of Clause 6 of the Code.
Regarding misleading presentation, the Commission affirmed that media may use illustrative images in public-interest reporting, provided they do not attribute specific facts or circumstances to identifiable individuals.
Applying the reasonable reader test, the Commission found that neither the image nor the caption conveyed a misleading or definitive assertion about the complainant personally.
On privacy and dignity, the Commission assessed the matter objectively in context. The photograph was taken in a public setting, disclosed no private facts, and did not subject the complainant to ridicule beyond that incidental to ordinary public reportage. The respondents therefore remained within the bounds of editorial discretion under the Code.
Finding no breach of the relevant provisions, the Commission concluded that the complaint lacked merit and dismissed it entirely.