Yes I Published it But Where is The Lie? Mwakideu Puts Burale In Tight Spot As Sh20 Million Defamation Suit Takes Off

The defamation battle between motivational speaker Robert Burale and radio presenter Alex Mwakideu has taken a dramatic turn, with the media personality mounting an audacious defence that has left legal observers stunned.

In a bold move that has sent shockwaves through Nairobi’s legal circles, Mwakideu has admitted to publishing the contested statements but brazenly challenged Burale to prove they were false, arguing that everything aired on his YouTube channel was already public knowledge shared by the pastor himself.

The case, which seeks Sh20 million in damages, hit an unexpected snag at the Milimani Law Courts on Thursday when the presiding magistrate raised concerns about whether the court had jurisdiction to hear a matter involving such a substantial claim.

At the heart of Mwakideu’s defence is a provocative argument that has placed Burale in an uncomfortable position.

The radio host points to Burale’s own book, “From the Strip Club to the Pulpit,” as evidence that the pastor has voluntarily and publicly discussed the very issues he now claims have defamed him.

“Both before and after the interview, he has published a book and voluntarily engaged the public in interviews, podcasts, and social media discussions, admitting, at length, the same subject matter he now complains of,” Mwakideu stated in his response to the suit.

The defence argues that Burale’s public persona and his deliberate choice to share intimate details of his past life undermine his claim of defamation. According to Mwakideu’s lawyer, Dudley Ochiel, the statements made during an interview with Mwakideu’s sister Rozina were truthful, constituted fair comment, and were made in the public interest.

“Where a defendant pleads justification, fair comment, and public interest, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant an injunction,” Ochiel argued before the court, adding that his clients were ready to defend their words in open court.

The admission sparked heated exchanges between the legal teams.

Burale’s lawyer protested that the defence had not been properly placed on record, complaining that confidential court directions were mysteriously appearing online before being officially issued.

“We are concerned that a judicial officer or staff member might be leaking information to the public,” Burale’s counsel told the court, hinting at possible insider leaks from the judiciary.

But Mwakideu’s legal team was having none of it. Ochiel countered that they had duly served all documents by email, saying, “It is true we were appointed yesterday, but we burned the midnight oil and are ready to proceed.”

Radio Presenter Alex Mwakideu.

The defence further contends that the content presented on the YouTube channel was Rozina’s personal testimony, which any reasonable viewer would interpret as her subjective account rather than factual verification by the host.

“The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any irreparable harm. He remains a prominent public figure, continues to preach and appear on various media outlets, and has not shown any measurable loss of income or status,” Mwakideu argued.

However, Burale paints a different picture. He claims his Christian calling has been unlawfully hindered, and his future attempts to recruit and impact people’s lives as a pastor have been jeopardized by what he terms false publications.

“In addition to the extensive damage and disparage met, the plaintiff has suffered loss, embarrassment, distress and defamation of reputation, credibility and honour,” Burale states in his suit, adding that he has incurred tremendous costs explaining himself to right thinking members of society.

He accuses Mwakideu of breaching professional duty contrary to the Media Council Act and the Constitution, seeking not just compensation but also a mandatory order requiring the journalist to delete the video and offer a public apology.

Just as the legal fireworks were reaching a crescendo, the magistrate threw a spanner in the works by questioning whether the court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to handle a case seeking Sh20 million in damages, an amount that exceeds the Chief Magistrate’s Court limit.

“Before we proceed, your client is seeking general and aggravated damages of Sh20 million. This court’s jurisdiction does not extend that far,” the magistrate observed.

While Burale’s lawyer explained that the figure had been erroneously uploaded from an earlier draft and had since been amended, the magistrate maintained that the jurisdiction question had to be clarified first before any substantive orders could be granted.

The court consequently halted proceedings and directed that the matter be mentioned on October 28 before the Chief Magistrate for further directions.

“Since this court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, it cannot issue any substantive orders,” the magistrate ruled, leaving both parties in legal limbo.

The case has captivated public attention, pitting a prominent pastor against a popular media personality in a battle over truth, reputation, and the boundaries of public discourse.

At its core lies a fundamental question: can a public figure who has voluntarily shared intimate details of their past life later claim defamation when others discuss the same matters?

Mwakideu’s defence suggests that Burale’s discomfort with public commentary does not constitute defamation under Kenyan law, especially when the pastor himself has made a career of discussing his transformation from a troubled past to spiritual leadership.

As the matter heads back to court for jurisdictional determination, legal experts are watching closely.

The outcome could have far reaching implications for media personalities, public figures, and the delicate balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation in Kenya’s digital age.

For now, Mwakideu’s defiant stance remains clear: Yes, I published it. But where is the lie?