No alcohol adverts on digital platforms, State's ban continues

Content creators have suffered a major blow after the High Court declined to suspend the government’s controversial ban on online alcohol advertising and influencer marketing.

The ruling delivered on Tuesday means the policy, introduced under the National Policy for Prevention, Management and Control of Alcohol, Drugs and Substance Abuse (2025), will remain in effect.

This as a petition filed by two content creators, Fidel Shammah Omusula and Brian Muthengi Kimanzi, proceeds to a full hearing on October 6.

In an urgent application, Omusula and Kimanzi had sought interim conservatory orders to halt implementation of Clause 6.5.2 of the policy. They argue the digital advertising ban, announced on July 30, 2025, by Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, was introduced without public participation, infringes on constitutional rights, and poses serious threat to livelihoods of thousands of creatives.

However, Justice Bahati Mwamuye, declined to issue an ex-parte order blocking implementation of the entire policy pending the hearing and determination of the petition. 

Instead, the judge directed the petitioners to serve CS Murkomen, Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, the National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NACADA), and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) with the lawsuit.

“The respondents (CS Interior, the AG and NACADA) and the interested party (LSK) shall enter appearance and file and serve their respective responses to both the application and the petition by close of business August 29, 2025,” Justice Mwamuye ordered.

“Mention on October 6, 2025, to confirm compliance and to take further directions on the expedited hearing and determination of the Application and/or the Petition.”

The court’s decision comes amid growing outcry from digital content creators who claim the government’s recent move is unconstitutional, economically disruptive, and a direct threat to Kenya’s rapidly growing digital economy.

In their petition, Omusula and Kimanzi are challenging legality of the policy, particularly the clause banning alcohol-related digital influencer content and paid partnerships.

“Pending the inter partes hearing and determination of this application, a conservatory order be issued staying the implementation, enforcement, or operationalization of the National Policy for the Prevention, Management & Control of Alcohol, Drugs & Substance Abuse (2025),” the petitioners urged.

“If the Court does not act now, the policy will cause irreparable harm to us and thousands of Kenyans who rely on brand partnerships for their survival. It will render this case useless if damage is already done,” Omusula stated.

The policy, spearheaded by the Ministry of Interior and NACADA, introduces stringent measures targeting alcohol and drug-related content. 

These include bans on advertising near schools, restrictions on social media promotions, and a blanket prohibition on influencer marketing involving alcohol products.

The directive also bans the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, restaurants, online platforms, hawking, public beaches, residential areas, bus stops, public transport, recreation, sport, and medical facilities

It banned delivery of liquor to people’s homes by vendors, a popular option for urban residents. The new rules set 21 years as the minimum legal age for consuming alcohol, effectively ending the 18-year legal limit.

While government officials defend the policy as necessary to protect youth from harmful exposure, citing rising rates of substance abuse among Kenyans aged 15–24, the petitioners insist the policy is an overreach that undermines constitutional freedoms. “We were not consulted, yet we are directly affected. The policy was imposed without hearing from content creators, advertisers, or the digital community,” says Omusula in his affidavit.

Through their lawyer, Joseph Makau, the petitioners argue that the ban unfairly targets young digital entrepreneurs who rely on social media platforms for income, describing it as economic discrimination and a violation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

“The government cannot legislate in darkness. You cannot take away livelihoods in the name of public health without engaging stakeholders,” says Mr Makau.

They contend that Clause 6.5.2 criminalises lawful economic activity and infringes on multiple constitutional rights, including freedom of expression (Article 33), right to information (Article 35), economic rights (Article 43), consumer rights (Article 46), and the right to fair administrative action (Article 47).

“This is a direct attack on the digital economy. Thousands of young Kenyans earn a legitimate income through digital platforms. To shut this down overnight, without consultation or due process, is both reckless and unlawful,” says Kimanzi.