Public Figures versus Privacy Rights

Media laws and ethics are there to regulate the activities of media practitioners. This is meant to ensure that media people act according to the profession’s acceptable code of conduct. Unfortunately, this issue has always generated a lot of controversial questions and debates, right from the law of defamation, copyright, censorship and privacy – up to the ethical issues such as objectivity, credibility, fairness, truth, and plagiarism – among others. Questions like who should enforce these laws and ethics – the constitution or the media itself – and to what extent have always posed a challenge to those interested in providing answers.

In this article, I want to concentrate much on the law of privacy as a right, especially to public figures.

According to the resultant combination of different scholars’ definitions, a public figure can be figured out as a person who is popular or famous amongst others and whose actions may be of interest to them. They may be government officials/politicians, other leaders and even celebrities – actors and actresses, musicians, footballers, e.t.c.

Generally, public figures are always entitled to minimal privacy rights in the society. Why? I have already said it that their actions may be of interest to the public.

If reporters cling so much on the law of privacy, there may be almost no news to report about.

Many men have divorced their wives, taken to court and ordered to pay huge amounts of money to the divorced, but which example of these cases do most people know if not that of Philip Moi? Reason? The retired president’s blood flows in his veins!

Wambua (right) surprised by his majesty

What has actually triggered the birth of this article is the latest ‘public’ action by the class representative of the 2015 media class in Moi University – Main campus. Of course he is a public figure especially in the context of the media class. Almost everybody does it but once it is done by a talented leader like him, it quickly translates into being newsworthy.

I am not ready to narrate the whole story as it happened but the picture aside serves as a perfect illustration of it, and can speak a thousand words about the same. Besides, I want to preserve at least a small fraction of his privacy that he is also entitled to enjoy as a fellow normal human being, regardless of his ranking position in authority.

Critics may obviously follow after the publication of this article, especially from the characters of the scene – if I may be allowed to call them so; but if at all they wanted to consider this as part of their privacy, then what was the rationale behind doing it in the eyes of the public?

Kwani hawajui kwamba faragha ya nyani huishia kokoni? Ama lazima niwakumbushe ile methali inayosema,“funika kombe mwana haramu apite”? Basi siku hizi si mwana haramu, nawaambia;

“Funika kombe mwana wa Kombe apite!!!”

Samahani kama nimekukoseeni…