Nothing personal reporting Nginyo family dispute; it’s strictly business
Then-patron of The National Alliance (TNA), Nginyo Kariuki, signs the visitors’ book after he opened the party’s office in Limuru Town, Kiambu County, in 2012. His succession is being contested in court.
What you need to know:
- Nginyo Kariuki died on February 24, 2020, leaving a vast estate and a will that was contested in court by one of his children.
- Two of the children, Jane Kiragu and Silas Kariuki, have complained that a story published by the Business Daily has damaged their reputation.
Some members of the Nginyo family have accused the Business Daily (BD) of having an axe to grind in reporting their inheritance dispute. Behind the accusation is the feeling that the newspaper has invaded the family’s privacy.
Privacy is the right to be free from public scrutiny and unwarranted publicity. The Constitution provides the right to privacy, including the right not to have information relating to family unnecessarily revealed.
Here are the acts of the case, which has taken time to resolve due to the way it is prosecuted. Nginyo Kariuki died on February 24, 2020, leaving a vast estate and a will that was contested in court by one of his children.
On July 28, 2021, the BD published “Nginyo children risk jail in Sh4bn estate fallout” as its lead story. It had published, over 10 months, six other stories regarding the dispute. But it was this front-page story that broke the camel’s back. It stated that Nginyo’s widow and some of her children withdrew money illegally from the deceased’s bank accounts.
Damaged their reputation
Two of the children, Jane Kiragu and Silas Kariuki, complain that the story damaged their reputation. They say the statement that a person found guilty of appropriating the property of a dead person is liable to imprisonment, a fine or both creates the impression that they violated the law and are at risk of being jailed. They add that their case is a civil matter and there is no question of anyone going to jail. The headline is sensationalist, misleading and untrue, they claim.
They also say “no one (sic) withdrew Sh70m” from the deceased accounts. “These remarks damage our reputation in the eyes of the public.”
I’ve examined the story against the court documents used by writer Victor Juma. There are no inaccuracies. The only thing that can be faulted is placing the story on the front page as the leading news and the headline as being speculative. It’s true there were other stories that could, arguably, have been used as the leading news.
For example, there was the story, “CA to cut mobile call rates after six-year freeze”, which took the second position. The planned cut had the potential of sparking a price war among mobile phone operators that would lower call rates.
There is also the question of whether the Nginyo story was sensationalist. Sensationalism is when a news sources is worded to be exciting or shocking at the expense of accuracy. There is no such wording.
Invasion of family privacy
However, the headline “Nginyo children risk jail in Sh4bn estate fallout” is, notably, speculative. It’s based on the possibility that the case can move from being purely civil to criminal if an audit proves there was intermeddling — the term the Law of Succession Act uses for illegally interfering with an estate. It makes it a crime. So the possibility, or risk, exists that somebody could go to jail or be fined. Then again, the possibility may not materialise if the audit finds there was no intermeddling.
The duo say “it is curious” that BD would run a lead story on what is essentially a succession dispute; that it’s “rather suspicious” a business-oriented publication has published a series of articles on a succession dispute. Actually, it’s not curious or suspicious; a story on the estate of a businessman is legitimate news for a business-oriented publication.
They further ask: “Why have we not seen succession disputes relating to other prominent Kenyans receive similar treatment?” Actually, we have. Over the years, BD and the Nation have published, without fear or favour, running stories on other Kenyan families feuding over inheritance. For a glimpse of such cases, see “Court battles offered rare peek into departed tycoons’ wealth” (Daily Nation, December 31, 2021).
The story, no doubt, invades the privacy of the Nginyo family. But it’s a court story, exempt from the provisions of the Data Protection Act, which give effect to the constitutional provision for the right to privacy. My verdict is, there is nothing personal in reporting the Nginyo story. It was strictly business.
The Public Editor is an independent news ombudsman who handles readers’ complaints on editorial matters including accuracy and journalistic standards. Email: [email protected]. Call or text 0721989264
