Nairobi News

ChillaxHashtagMust ReadNewsWhat's Hot

‘Yesu Ninyandue’ singer sues KFCB for demanding Sh 243k and banning his content

By Sinda Matiko October 22nd, 2024 4 min read

Eldoret-based singer William Getumbe, who sparked controversy with his song ‘Yesu Ninyandue’, has filed a suit at the High Court against the Kenya Films Classification Board (KFCB) for banning the song and demanding he pay Sh243,2000.
On the night of 13th March 2024, the counseling psychologist and part-time content creator was arrested in his home in Eldoret after he failed to remit to the board the Sh243,200 in filming and licensing fees for uploading his lewd Yesu Ninyandue viral videos without KFCB approval.
At the time of his arrest, the musician had become a trending topic in the country after releasing the two racy songs on YouTube – Yesu Ninyandue-Imejaa and Yesu Ninandue-Nyonga.
Basking in his newfound fame, Mr. Getumbe went about his business, explaining his inspirations behind the songs to bloggers and several podcasts.
On February 29, he received a demand letter and a sales invoice from KFCB signed by Nelly Muluka Oluoch – the board’s communications manager – for the acting CEO, Mr. Paskal Opiyo.
“It has come to our attention that you as a content creator have uploaded several videos on your YouTube channel, the most recent of which are titled Yesu Ninyandue-Imejaa and Yesu Ninandue-Nyonga, among others, which have been criticized for being blasphemous, containing nudity and the use of vulgar language. None of your videos uploaded to YouTube have undergone the necessary screening and classification process to determine age appropriateness as required by Section 4 of the Film and Stage Plays Act Cap 222 prior to public exhibition. Further, you failed to obtain filming permits prior to the production of the music videos in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act,” reads part of the demand letter seen by Nairobi News.
The demand letter further served Mr. Getumbe a seven-day notice to pay the filming and licensing fees and pull down the videos, failure to which he would be arrested and charged to court.
“In the light of the above, we, therefore, demand that you pull down, cease and desist from circulating your music videos. We further demand that you strictly comply with the requirements of the Films and Stage Plays Act by obtaining licenses and submitting the videos to the Board for examination and classification before they are exhibited to the public and finally remit the outstanding filming and licensing fees amounting to Ksh 243,200 to the Board.” The letter added.
According to the sales invoice, Mr. Getumbe was to pay Sh190,000 as licensing fees, Sh38,000 as filming fees, and Sh15,200 as classification fees, totaling Sh243,200.
Defiant and aggrieved, he filed a petition in the High Court on March 6, accusing KFCB (1st respondent) and its CEO (2nd respondent) of gagging his freedom of expression, discriminating against him, and imposing a blanket ban on his content creation by prohibiting him from posting and sharing any of his content on YouTube, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and threatening to block his accounts. The case was scheduled to be heard for the first mention on April 29, 2014, when he was arrested after the notice expired. Ms. Olouch confirmed the arrest.

Related:Exclusive: Gospel singer behind blasphemous song ‘Yesu Ninyandue’ speaks

In his written submissions before  Justice Lawrence Mugambi, Mr. Getumbe accuses KFCB and its CEO of overstretching its mandate by relying on a 1962 Act that events have overtaken. Under the Act, he argues, KFCB and the CEO cannot classify his Yesu Ninyandue video songs as films.
“Since this law was passed by Congress in 1962, there have been significant advances in the technology and media used today in 2024. The days of audiovisual content being available only in a film studio and a movie theater are long gone. Technology has advanced to the point that audiovisual media is now available to all people through their handheld smartphone devices. Restricting their use would amount to an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and a serious restriction of the rights to freedom of expression and the media.” Mr. Getumbe argues.
The musician also questions the mandate of the KFCB and its CEO to regulate the activities of content creators on the internet.
“The respondents purport to have the power to regulate social media and cyberspace. The 1st Respondent (KFCB) claims that the Film and Stage Plays Act gives the Board the authority to regulate films produced and exhibited in Kenya. However, the 1st Respondent has taken the same to mean that cyberspace in all its complexity means all videos viewed in Kenya. This has disproportionately affected all persons living and working in Kenya as content creators, as their social media videos have been targeted by the 1st Defendant.” Mr Getumbe argues.
He further adds,
“The videos of content creators made in other countries and displayed/viewed in Kenya were not subject to such regulations. Attempting to regulate such with the same laws would lead to numerous absurdities. The entire Act makes no mention of social media and the respondents are going ahead to give themselves powers on matters not provided for in the Film and Stage Plays Act.”.
In their written submissions, the KFCB and its CEO defended their actions by stating that numerous complaints had been received about the “audio-visual films mainly in the form of music videos-songs” and upon investigation, it was found that the films had not obtained a filming license as required under the Films and Stage Plays Act and had not been submitted to the Board for classification, evaluation, and issuance of a certificate of approval.
The respondents further stated that the Board is empowered by the Act under Sections 12 and 16 to either approve or disapprove the film for exhibition to the public.
“The guiding objective is that the Board shall not approve any film which, in its opinion, is likely to prejudice the maintenance of public order or offend decency, or the public exhibition or display of which, in its opinion, is for any other reason undesirable in the public interest,” Mr. Paskal said in his defense.
After both parties presented their cases to Judge Mugambi, he directed that the court should deliver its judgment on February 20, 2025.