Court restrains Senator Onyonka from repeating claims against Governor Arati

The High Court in Kisii has issued a temporary restraining order against Senator Richard Onyonka, preventing him from repeating or publishing allegations made against Governor Paul Simba Arati. These allegations include claims that Arati uses goons, violence, and criminal activity to handle issues in Kisii County. The injunction was issued after a defamation case was filed by Arati against Onyonka, stemming from a press statement Onyonka released in June 2025.

In this statement, Onyonka accused Arati of employing goons and criminals to assault a Senate team that had come to Kisii County to audit and oversee the county's financial records. Arati contended that these allegations tarnished his reputation by portraying him as violent, incompetent, corrupt, and unfit to serve in public office.

Justice Prof. Nixon Sifuna, who issued the temporary injunction, found that Arati had presented a valid case warranting protection at the early stages of the trial. The judge deemed the press statement capable of portraying Arati as an incompetent governor who relies on violence, employs goons, and exhibits criminal tendencies. Justice Sifuna also examined another section of the statement where Onyonka described Kisii County as chaotic due to a lack of basic education and accused the county's leadership of incompetence.

According to the judge, these statements could portray Arati as uneducated, incompetent, and someone who resorts to violence to deal with issues. However, the judge emphasized that this ruling is not a final verdict on whether Arati has indeed been defamed. The court's primary responsibility is to balance Arati's right to reputation against Onyonka's freedom of expression.

The injunction prohibits Onyonka from making the same or substantially similar allegations against Arati in public forums, including media briefings, press statements, social media platforms, and during political rallies. Nonetheless, the temporary order does not limit Onyonka's ability to perform his duties as a senator in parliamentary settings or when addressing matters relevant to his oversight mandate.

Justice Sifuna declined Arati's request to compel the removal of the disputed press statement from social media platforms, stating that deleting the material would undermine the trial as the disputed statement could be crucial as evidence. The court granted Arati's application partially by issuing the prohibitory injunction but declined to order the removal of the disputed material.

Both parties are responsible for their own legal costs, and the defamation lawsuit will proceed to a full hearing where the court will decide whether the statements constitute defamation and whether Onyonka's parliamentary oversight role can serve as a legal defense for any statements made outside of Parliament.