The High Court in Nairobi has rejected an application by Paradigm Initiative to join a data protection case against Elon Musk’s X Corp. (formerly Twitter) as an amicus curiae, or friend of the court.
The case was filed by Felix Kibet, who was suing X, the Attorney General, the Communication Authority of Kenya (CA), the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB), the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.
Kibet asked the court to order X to delete all Kenyan accounts that use aliases or unofficial names. He also wanted the platform to remove content that is pornographic, hateful, lewd, or disrespectful.
In addition, he called for the government to ensure that social media platforms follow the constitution and are safe for users.
Paradigm Initiative asked to join the case, saying the petition raised key issues around digital rights and online anonymity. These are still new areas of law in Kenya.
Paradigm Initiative wanted the court to consider how other countries have dealt with similar matters. The group said it had experience in digital rights and could offer helpful, impartial insights to the court.
Paradigm Initiative also argued that the petition raised public interest issues, including how the constitution protects freedom of expression and privacy in the digital age, and how these rights align with international law.
However, the petitioner, Felix Kibet, along with the Communication Authority, opposed Paradigm Initiative’s application. They argued that Paradigm Initiative had taken sides in the case and was not neutral.
The Supreme Court of Kenya, in a previous case (Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemo & 5 Others), set clear guidelines for who can join a case as amicus curiae.
The guidelines say that such parties should only raise legal arguments, must remain neutral, must be faithful to the law, and should not repeat points already made. They should also offer a unique and expert perspective.
Following this criteria, the High Court found that Paradigm Initiative did not meet these requirements. It agreed with the petitioner and the CA that Paradigm Initiative appeared to be supporting one side in the case.
“For those reasons, the application has failed the Supreme Court’s test,” the judge said. “There is a reasonable perception that the Brief is not neutral, based on Paradigm Initiative’s past and current involvement in discussions about digital freedom and free expression in Kenya and Africa.”
