A call for a truce by veteran lawyer Makau Mutua to Kenyans whom he had clashed with on social media due to dissenting opinions which had made him block them has opened a can of worms.
In a post on his social media on Friday, May 1, Mutua stated that he was planning to unblock social media users and urged Deputy President William Ruto, who is well-known for the habit, to offer to do the same too.
"Henceforth, I won’t block anyone on my social media platforms no matter what they write. I must set a better example after Deputy President William Ruto blocked me.
"Let me know and I will unblock you if you fell victim. I ask DP Ruto to follow my lead and unblock folks," the seasoned lawyer pleaded.
Also on the complaints train was lawyer Steven Ogolla who opined that according to the law, the deputy president, being a public servant, had no locus to block those issuing dissenting opinions.
"DP William Ruto blocks people on Twitter for saying unpleasant things to him. But that's not the problem. The issue is: a state officer, tweeting for public benefit, cannot, in law, block people from accessing the information. How is this difficult to understand? I mean, really?" he posed.
Digital strategist Dennis Itumbi, however, jumped to the deputy president's defence and told Ogolla that there was an alternative account through which he could access the DP's public information if he so desired.
"Really simple. If you want to follow the deputy president, there is an official account for the purpose," he stated, echoing the opinions of many others who believed that the DP was well within his rights.
According to a constitutional lawyer and Makueni MP Dan Maanzo, the moment a leader becomes a public officer, his privacy is limited, not unless it concerns his immediate family.
Speaking to Kenyans.co.ke on Saturday, April 2, he said that there was no clear-cut constitutional provision directing how the DP or any other public leader should run their personal accounts.
He, however, stated that being a public leader, the DP had an obligation to answer questions posed to him by members of the public on whichever platforms they choose.
He also added that in accordance with Article 35 of the Constitution and the Right of Access to Information Act, the citizenry is entitled to receive the requested information as long as it does not infringe on the DP's privacy.
"The constitution is clear about the flow of information so if he is being asked questions, he should answer, but again also, it is somehow within his rights to block people.
"As a public servant, however, he should be accountable to the people. Accountability to the people is clearly shrouded in the constitution. You cannot block if the information is for the benefit of the public," Maanzo told this reporter.
According to Article 35 of the Constitution, every citizen has the right of access to information held by the state and information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom.
