A decade-long defamation battle pitting the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) against National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetangula has been halted after the Court of Appeal ordered a stay of the High Court proceedings.
- •The dispute traces back to Wetangula’s 2015 suit accusing the UK broadcaster of defamation over a ‘Panorama’ documentary alleging he received bribes from British American Tobacco (BAT).
- • The probe uncovered emails showing that in July 2012, BAT lobbyist Julie Adell-Owino requested a business-class ticket to London for Moses Wetangula, who was Minister for Trade at the time, with instructions to make the purchase “paperless” and leave “no receipts in his name.”
- •Wetangula denied receiving any money or tickets, describing the allegations as “crude rumours,” while BAT characterized the transaction as one among a series of unlawful bribes.
After the documentary aired, Wetangula sought damages and an injunction against further publication of the allegations, arguing that the programme portrayed him as complicit in a scandal linked to the cigarette manufacturer.
The Evidence Tussle
The procedural fight now at the centre of the case began when the BBC asked the High Court to issue a Letter of Request to the High Court of England. The broadcaster argued that BAT’s internal investigation report, as well as testimony and documents referenced in foreign litigation, were necessary to mount its full defence.
The BBC argued that BAT could hand over the material only if ordered by a court. The High Court rejected the request, saying it was too broad, failed to identify specific witnesses or documents, and risked turning the UK court into a wide-ranging fishing exercise. A subsequent bid by the BBC to pause the defamation trial failed on grounds of delay and absence of a memorandum of appeal.
The BBC then turned to the Court of Appeal, saying its challenge raised real legal questions about how Kenyan law handles requests for evidence from foreign courts. It warned that if the trial moved ahead before those questions were settled, it would be put at a serious disadvantage because the case could finish without the documents it is trying to obtain from the U.K.
The broadcaster framed the risk as a constitutional one, arguing that a trial conducted without potentially critical evidence would undermine its right to a fair hearing.
Wetangula responded that the BBC was trying to collect evidence it should have gathered before airing the documentary, calling the request a fishing expedition rather than a focused search for specific documents. He further claimed the broadcaster had delayed its move for a stay, pointing out that it acted months after signaling plans to appeal.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the BBC, saying the appeal over the Letter of Request raised real questions about whether the High Court applied the law on foreign evidence correctly. The judges also found no unreasonable delay, noting that the three months the BBC took to file the application was acceptable.
It held that if the defamation case were concluded before the appellate court addressed whether the BBC was entitled to obtain the foreign evidence, the broadcaster would suffer an irreparable disadvantage.
“In these circumstances, the balance tilts in favour of staying further proceedings until this Court determines whether or not the applicant is entitled to seek the evidence it wants through the Letter of Request,” the court ruled.
"Cost of Doing Business"
The BBC maintains the broadcast was based on investigative work referencing material discussed in UK proceedings involving BAT.
The documents it uncovered further suggest the tobacco company had bribed public officials in Rwanda, Burundi, and the Comoros Islands, some of whom were connected to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global initiative aimed at curbing tobacco-related deaths.
BAT employees described bribery as a normalized “cost of doing business” in Africa, with one former staffer, Paul Hopkins, secretly recording discussions with company lawyers about paying contacts to keep silent. Emails indicate that payments, ranging from US$3,000 to US$20,000, were designed to influence legislation, including the draft Tobacco Control Bill in Burundi.
