COURT OF APPEAL LIFTS 2018 BAN ON KENYAN FILM RAFIKI

The Court of Appeal has reversed a High Court ruling that upheld the 2018 ban on the film Rafiki. 

Presiding Justices W. Karanja, Tuiyott, and Achode examined the complex interplay between an artist’s constitutional right to expression and the state’s authority to enforce standards of public morality.

“The Court held that Freedom of Expression is protected by the Constitution. Our work cannot be confiscated. Police cannot shut down art with force or intimidation unless there is a real threat! The ruling is bigger than one film. It’s for filmmakers, artists, musicians, anyone who uses words, ideas or images. It’s for Kenyans who voted and fought for our 2010 Constitution. This is because OUR ideas are not crimes,” said the director Wanuri Kahiu.

The story of Rafiki is marked by international acclaim and domestic controversy. In April 2018, the film became the first Kenyan feature to be showcased at the Cannes Film Festival it was praised worldwide as an innovative work of African storytelling.

Yet at home, the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) moved to prohibit its screening. Under the leadership of CEO Ezekiel Mutua, the KFCB declared that the film’s producers had refused to edit out content that the Board deemed inappropriate, stating that Rafiki promoted values inconsistent with Kenyan law regarding homosexuality.

Later that year, director Wanuri and the Creative Economy Working Group filed a constitutional challenge against the ban. In a ruling in September 2018, Justice Wilfrida Okwany suspended the ban for one week. This allowed the film to be screened in Kenya and submitted for consideration in the Academy Awards’ International Feature Film category. Despite this, theHigh Court ultimately upheld the ban in 2020.

The court said that simply showing a gay relationship in a movie is not a good enough reason to ban it completely. A total ban should only happen if a film is actively telling people to break the law. Because Rafiki only showed the relationship, the Board could have given it an “Adults Only” rating instead of banning it.