Court Rejects Senator Aaron Cheruiyot’s Bid to Gag Blogger Cyprian Nyakundi in Betting Tax Scandal Lawsuit

A Milimani Law court has rejected a gag order sought by Senate Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot against prominent blogger Cyprian Nyakundi, who accused the Kericho senator of involvement in a betting tax scandal.

The decision, hailed as a victory for freedom of speech, allows Nyakundi to continue his public commentary on the explosive allegations, spotlighting tensions between accountability and attempts to suppress criticism in Kenya’s political landscape.

This marks the second time in recent months that Cheruiyot has unsuccessfully sought to silence a whistleblower, raising questions about the senator’s approach to public scrutiny.

The court’s ruling today dismissed Cheruiyot’s request for interim gag orders, finding no legal basis to restrict Nyakundi’s commentary.

Represented by lawyer Donald Kipkorir, Nyakundi celebrated the decision on X, calling it a “major win for free speech and a defeat for judicial intimidation.”

The blogger had alleged that Cheruiyot was among Kenya Kwanza Alliance leaders profiting from irregularities in betting tax collections, claiming that intermediaries, rather than the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA), were handling the process, potentially diverting billions in public funds.

Nyakundi’s accusations, first published on X in April 2025, suggested that certain politicians were acting as agents for betting firms, undermining transparent tax collection.

Cheruiyot firmly denied any involvement, stating on X, “I do not even know how to bet, let alone have interest in a betting firm or related business. You ought to be embarrassed of yourself.”

He subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit and sought to silence Nyakundi, arguing the claims severely damaged his reputation.

The court’s refusal to impose the gag order reinforces Kenya’s constitutional commitment to freedom of expression, particularly under Article 33, which protects the right to seek, receive, and impart information.

The ruling is viewed as a significant precedent that public figures cannot use lawsuits to stifle allegations of misconduct, especially regarding sectors like betting where transparency concerns have persisted.

Echoes of the JKIA-Adani case

This case mirrors Senator Cheruiyot’s previous legal action against whistleblower Nelson Amenya, who exposed a controversial $2 billion deal between the Kenyan government and India’s Adani Group to lease Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) for 30 years. Amenya’s revelations, which sparked nationwide protests and ultimately led to President William Ruto canceling the deal, prompted Cheruiyot to file a defamation lawsuit and seek a gag order to prevent further disclosures.

Like Nyakundi, Amenya successfully resisted the attempt to silence him. A French court, where Amenya resides, dismissed a related defamation case filed by a Kenyan businessman, ruling that Amenya’s posts on X were protected under European Union laws on freedom of expression due to their focus on matters of public interest.

The parallel outcomes suggest an emerging judicial trend toward protecting whistleblowers and journalists who expose alleged malfeasance in public affairs.

A pattern of litigation?

Cheruiyot’s repeated attempts to legally silence critics have drawn scrutiny, with observers questioning whether the senator is using litigation to shield himself from legitimate public scrutiny.

As Senate Majority Leader, Cheruiyot wields significant influence within the ruling Kenya Kwanza coalition, making allegations against him particularly consequential.

His legal actions against both Nyakundi and Amenya highlight what some see as a concerning pattern among Kenyan politicians who turn to defamation suits to counter accusations of corruption or misconduct.

Constitutional lawyer Dr. Jane Wambui notes that such lawsuits risk undermining Kenya’s democratic foundations. “Public figures must tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny,” she told this publication.

“Resorting to gag orders to suppress allegations, especially without conclusive evidence of falsehood, sets a dangerous precedent.”

The betting tax scandal specifically touches on a critical issue.

Kenya’s betting industry, valued at billions of shillings annually, has faced persistent allegations of tax evasion and opaque revenue collection practices.

What’s at stake?

Nyakundi’s claims center on the alleged use of intermediaries to collect betting taxes, bypassing the KRA and potentially costing the state billions in revenue.

He has advocated for direct tax collection by the KRA, arguing that middlemen create opportunities for corruption.

The allegations resonate with public frustration over Kenya’s rapidly growing betting industry, which has faced criticism for both lax regulation and its social impact, particularly gambling addiction among youth.

While Cheruiyot has categorically denied any involvement, the court’s refusal to gag Nyakundi ensures these allegations will remain in the public domain, fueling debate about transparency in the betting sector.

The defamation case itself continues, and Nyakundi has yet to provide concrete evidence substantiating his claims.

However, the ruling allows him to continue his commentary, placing pressure on Cheruiyot to address the accusations through proper legal channels rather than suppression.

The court’s decision comes at a time when Kenya’s judiciary is increasingly positioned as a defender against attempts to curtail free speech.

Recent rulings, such as the High Court’s declaration of Worldcoin’s operations as illegal on May 6, 2025, underscore a commitment to protecting public interest over private or political agendas.

For journalists and whistleblowers like Nyakundi and Amenya, these judicial victories strengthen their ability to hold power to account, despite the significant risks they face, including legal costs and personal safety concerns.

As the defamation case against Nyakundi proceeds, observers will watch closely to see whether he can substantiate his claims or if Cheruiyot will pursue additional legal remedies.

For now, the court’s ruling ensures that this important conversation will continue in the public sphere, unimpeded by prior restraint.