What it means when we say person ‘cannot be named for legal reasons’

From time to time, you will come across a news story that says a person “cannot be named for legal reasons”.

But the story never sets out what those legal reasons are. So what is that all about? Is it a case of journalists not knowing the correct naming position and, therefore, bluffing?

Names may be withheld legally in media reports under three scenarios. The first and most common is when a child—anybody under 18—is involved in a crime or court proceedings.

The Children Act requires that such a child should not be identified. Further, the Sexual Offences Act says children can’t be named if they are victims or witnesses in rape and sexual assault cases.

The second scenario is when a statement is defamatory. The name of the person defamed by the statement may be withheld to avoid repeat defamation.

The third scenario is when the courts may require the names of victims in insensitive cases to be withheld or anonymised. Such cases include sexual offences, domestic violence, divorce, adoption, maintenance and succession.

Let’s look at some of the cases where the Nation has withheld names “for legal reasons.”

The Nation reported that police arrested six robbers and—except for a 17-year-old— named them. The newspaper says the person could not be named “because of legal reasons” (See “Sleuths arrest six suspects, seize two pistols in city sting operation”—Daily Nation, Oct. 7, 2022). The newspaper does not say what those “legal reasons” are and, therefore, leaves the reader to speculate. 

Readers may be forgiven for thinking that the 17-year-old could not be named because he was the son of the Chief Justice or some other powerful person! To avoid such wild speculation, the Nation could have spelt out the legal reasons; that is, the Children Act does not allow the media to identify children involved in crime, or words to that effect.

Another example. The Nation reported that 10 students were suspended by St Mary’s Boys Secondary School, in Nyeri, for sporting tattoos. A student told the Nation he did not regret tattooing but felt he was unfairly sent away from school. The Nation said it was withholding his name “for legal reasons”.

Mumbo jumbo

What are those legal reasons? I have no clue, and presumably, most readers do not either. Could it all be mumbo jumbo intended to intimidate the reader just because the journalist is not sure whether the student should be named or not? (See “Suspension of students with tattoos from Nyeri school sparks debate”—Daily Nation, Jan. 22, 2020).

Yet another example. This one was pointed out to me earlier this year by a reader, Kamau Ngugi. The Nation published a series of stories on the gruesome murder of Ezekiel Gitangwa, then the headteacher of Getengereirie Primary School, in Nyamira.

His mutilated body was found in the house of a nurse who the police said was the prime suspect. The Nation says it could not name the suspect “for legal reasons”—presumably to avoid defaming the suspect.

But in similar cases where the police name the suspect, the Nation as well normally does. Besides, seven stories published about the murder, it reveals where the nurse worked and the name of her village. It also informs readers she had a Grade Three son and had worked in Botswana. Further, the Nation says her photos were widely circulated in social media in connection with the crime.

So what were those legal reasons that prevented the Nation from naming her?

The newspaper had already published her identifiers. The police had also named her. The law says a fair and accurate media story of a report issued for public information by a gazetted police officer enjoys qualified privilege. Section 9 of the Schedule of the Defamation Act renders such information unactionable, even though it is defamatory.

Clearly, the Nation needs to be more specific and open with its readers about why it cannot name some newsmakers “for legal reasons”, especially in cases where the legal reasons are not obvious to the reader.

It must avoid the curse of the fuzzy words and tell readers what the “legal reasons” are and let them decide for themselves whether withholding a name is justifiable.

These are the writers I enjoy reading

I’ve been reading The Nation since 1976. My favourite editions are Tuesday, Friday and Sunday. I find the articles factual, objective, well-researched and interesting. They also cover a broad range of subjects. The writers I enjoy most are Mutuma Mathiu, John Kamau, Gitau Warigi and Prof Peter Kagwanja.

— Lawrence Kibui

* * *

Columnists use toxic insulting language

As one who has been reading the Daily Nation and its sister publications, I have appreciated the written word by well-trained, focused and impartial scribes. But of late there is a narrative being propagated by retired journalists that they trade as opinions but, in effect, they are bashing politicians. The language they use is condescending, toxic and insulting.

Sample this: “It gets worse for these naive, misguided Mountain UDAists...punctured, sidelined because of their rabid anti-Raila hatred”, “electing the most obtuse bunch of pseudo leaders in the community's recorded history”.

This hatred should be inked in paid-up spaces and leave opinion pages for balanced articles.

—Chris Kiriba

* * *

Same hitches downloading the e-paper

A complaint by one Willie Thimba shows a lack of seriousness in addressing readers' complaints (“Hitches in downloading online ‘Nation’”, Readers Have Their Say—Daily Nation, April 7, 2023). 

“I made a similar complaint back in January. I buy the Sunday Nation online and the paper is always incomplete with several missing pages, which emerge after a day or two. Let the management address the same. 

We want to read news, not history.”

— Githaiga Kairu

* * *

What is this buttocks business?

Recently, you wrote about buttocks (“The sickening story of Sarah on show for people to gaze at her big backside”—Daily Nation, March 10, 2023). In his April 7 article, “‘Handshake’ best thing for Kenya”, columnist Mutuma Mathiu wrote: “When you apply a big brain to a small task, you get progress.

However, the complexity of stuff is such that specialists—folk who know a hell of a lot about a tiny thing—are incapable of solving a complex problem whose big buttocks straddle many touchpoints (if you know what I mean). “ Mutuma, no doubt, hid what he meant. 

What’s happening? Please look into the matter.

— Githuku Mungai
 

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