The Kenyan Court of Appeal recently suspended the defamation lawsuit filed by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Moses Wetang’ula, against the BBC. The case centers around the BBC’s 2015 documentary “Panorama: The Secret Bribery of the Tobacco Industry,” which alleged that Wetang’ula received illegal benefits from British American Tobacco (BAT) during his tenure as a senator. The BBC requested to halt the lawsuit to await relevant evidence from the UK, but this request was repeatedly rejected by the High Court. The Court of Appeal has now suspended the High Court proceedings pending the outcome of the BBC’s appeal.
Key Points Summary
-
The appellate court suspended the trial of Wetang’ula’s defamation case against the BBC.
-
The dispute stems from a 2015 BBC documentary alleging that BAT provided illegal benefits to Wetang’ula.
-
The BBC sought to pause the lawsuit while awaiting judicial assistance from UK courts to obtain evidence.
-
The High Court repeatedly rejected the BBC’s applications.
-
The Court of Appeal ruled the BBC’s appeal is arguable and approved the suspension.
Background of the Defamation Lawsuit
December 2, 2025 — According to The Weekly Vision, the Kenyan Court of Appeal has halted the trial of the defamation case brought by National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetang’ula against the BBC. Wetang’ula seeks to stop the dissemination of the allegations and demands general and aggravated damages, costs, and interest.
Origins in the 2015 BBC ‘Panorama’ Documentary
The lawsuit arises from the BBC documentary “Panorama: The Secret Bribery of the Tobacco Industry,” aired in late 2015. The investigation alleged that British American Tobacco (BAT) bribed multiple individuals, including Wetang’ula, who was then serving as the senator for Bungoma.
BBC’s Requests for International Judicial Assistance
The BBC previously asked the High Court to issue a judicial assistance request to the UK courts to obtain witness testimonies and related documents. While awaiting a response, the BBC sought suspension of proceedings. Wetang’ula opposed the request, arguing it was lengthy, unfounded, and unclear. The High Court rejected the application in October 2023, along with subsequent BBC requests for suspension.
Appeal Court Considers Evidence Access Essential
The BBC then submitted a fresh application to the Court of Appeal, arguing that continuing High Court proceedings would render their appeal meaningless and block access to crucial evidence. Wetang’ula countered that the BBC attempted to gather evidence only years after the documentary’s release and that the application was improper and baseless.
Court of Appeal’s Legal Reasoning
The appellate court noted that under Article 5(2)(b) of the Rules, it has original and discretionary authority to suspend proceedings when necessary. The court found the BBC’s appeal to be arguable and not excessively delayed. It emphasized that the constitutional right to a fair trial (Article 25(c)) cannot be compromised; proceeding without resolving the BBC’s right to seek evidence could jeopardize this right.
Final Ruling: Proceedings Suspended Pending Appeal
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the BBC, suspending High Court proceedings until the appeal is heard and decided. Costs will be determined based on the outcome of the appeal.
