Activists Challenge 2018 Ban on Marie Stopes Abortion Services in Nairobi Court

The High Court in Nairobi is reviewing a petition seeking to overturn controversial 2018 directives that banned Marie Stopes Kenya from conducting public awareness campaigns and providing abortion services across the country.

The case, filed by the Network for Adolescents and Youth of Africa (NAYA–Kenya) and Jackline Mary Karanja through the Centre for Reproductive Rights, challenges actions taken by three government bodies: the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB), the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board (KMPDC), and the Director of Medical Services (DMS).

The petitioners argue that these institutions overstepped their legal mandates when implementing the ban.

They contend that KFCB, whose authority is limited to films and stage plays, had no jurisdiction to prohibit radio reproductive health awareness campaigns.

Similarly, they claim KMPDC unlawfully banned abortion services despite lacking oversight authority over facilities like Marie Stopes Kenya.

Most significantly, the petitioners assert that the DMS directive halting post-abortion care violated Article 43 of the Constitution, which guarantees access to emergency medical treatment.

Legal counsel Timothy Thondu argued that these actions were unconstitutional and infringed on women’s and adolescents’ fundamental rights.

“The bans stigmatise reproductive health services, undermine the Constitution, and leave women and girls unable to access lifesaving care,” the petitioners stated in their submissions.

The case has drawn support from several prominent advocacy organizations, including the Reproductive Health Network Kenya, FIDA–Kenya, KELIN, and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, highlighting the broader implications for reproductive healthcare access in the country.

However, government respondents, represented by lawyer Charles Kanjama, strongly defended their actions as both lawful and constitutional.

Kanjama argued that the directives fell within their mandate under the Public Health Act and emphasized that pre-2010 statutes remain valid under Section 7 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

“The petition does not directly challenge the validity of the statutes but merely presumes them unconstitutional,” Kanjama submitted to the court, maintaining that medical officers were properly empowered to regulate public health matters, including reproductive services.

The petitioners are seeking a declaration that the officials’ actions were unconstitutional and requesting that those involved be deemed unfit for public office for breaching good governance principles under Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution.

After hearing both written and oral submissions from all parties, the court has scheduled the matter for further directions on December 5, 2025, setting the stage for a landmark ruling that could significantly impact reproductive healthcare policy in Kenya.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​