Court Rejects Paradigm Initiative’s Bid to Join X Data Case 

The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed an application by Paradigm Initiative (PIN) to participate as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a data protection case involving X Corp (formerly Twitter).

The case, filed by petitioner Felix Kibet, targets X Corp, the Attorney General, the Communication Authority of Kenya, the Kenya Film Classification Board, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner.

The petitioner seeks to compel X Corp to delete Kenyan accounts using aliases or unofficial names, remove content considered pornographic, lewd, hateful, or disrespectful, and require the government to ensure social media platforms are safe and comply with constitutional standards.

PIN had argued that the petition raised emerging issues in Kenya around digital rights and online anonymity, areas where it holds considerable expertise. The organization stated its intention to offer neutral and expert insights on the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and international legal frameworks relevant to the digital era.

However, the petitioner and the Communication Authority opposed PIN’s inclusion, claiming the organization had taken partisan positions. They cited PIN’s previous publications—particularly a report titled “Devolved Impunity: The State of Safety and Security of Bloggers in Kenya”—as evidence of bias.

Also Read: Elon Musk sued for tanking Twitter’s stock

Referring to the Supreme Court guidelines established in the Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemo case, the court reiterated that an amicus curiae must maintain neutrality, fidelity to the law, and present new legal perspectives without siding with any party.

While the court acknowledged PIN’s expertise, it found that the organization’s submissions and prior advocacy created a perception of partisanship.

“For these reasons,” the judge ruled, “the application has failed the Supreme Court’s test… due to a reasonable perception of partisanship in the Brief or in the applicant’s role in ongoing commentary on digital freedoms in Kenya and Africa.”

PIN’s application was therefore denied on the grounds that it could not be regarded as a neutral participant in the case.