African courts may pave the way for holding social media giants to account

A caller determination by a Kenyan tribunal opens the doorway to question justness for harms done by convulsive and hateful contented connected societal media platforms.

In April 2025, the Human Rights Court successful Kenya issued an unprecedented ruling that it has the jurisdiction to perceive a lawsuit astir harmful contented connected 1 of Meta’s platforms. The suit was filed successful 2022 by Abraham Meareg, the lad of an Ethiopian world who was murdered aft helium was doxxed and threatened connected Facebook, Fisseha Tekle, an Ethiopian quality rights activist, who was besides doxxed and threatened connected Facebook, and Katiba Institute, a Kenyan non-profit that defends constitutionalism. They support that Facebook’s algorithm plan and its contented moderation decisions made successful Kenya resulted successful harm done to 2 of the claimants, fuelled the struggle successful Ethiopia and led to wide quality rights violations wrong and extracurricular Kenya.

The contented successful question falls extracurricular the protected categories of code nether Article 33 of the Constitution of Kenya and includes propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hatred code and advocacy of hatred that constitutes taste incitement, vilification of others, incitement to origin harm and discrimination.

Key to the Kenyan lawsuit is the question whether Meta, a US-based corporation, tin financially payment from unconstitutional contented and whether determination is simply a affirmative work connected the corp to instrumentality down unconstitutional contented that besides violates its Community Standards.

In affirming the Kenyan court’s jurisdiction successful the case, the justice was emphatic that the Constitution of Kenya allows a Kenyan tribunal to adjudicate implicit Meta’s acts oregon omissions regarding contented posted connected the Facebook level that whitethorn interaction the observance of quality rights wrong and extracurricular Kenya.

The Kenyan determination signals a paradigm displacement towards level liability wherever judges find liability by solely asking the question: Do level decisions observe and uphold quality rights?

The eventual extremity of the Bill of Rights, a communal diagnostic successful African constitutions, is to uphold and support the inherent dignity of each people. Kenya’s Bill of Rights, for example, has arsenic its sole ngo to sphere the dignity of individuals and communities and to beforehand societal justness and the realisation of the imaginable of each quality beings. The supremacy of the Constitution besides guarantees that, should determination beryllium harmless harbour provisions successful the laws of that country, they would not beryllium a capable liability shield for platforms if their concern decisions bash not yet uphold quality rights.

That a lawsuit connected algorithm amplification has passed the jurisdiction proceeding signifier successful Kenya is simply a testament that quality rights instrumentality and constitutionality connection an accidental for those who person suffered harm arsenic a effect of societal media contented to question redress.

Up to this point, the thought that a societal media level tin beryllium held accountable for contented connected its level has been dissuaded by the broad immunity offered nether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act successful the US, and to a lesser extent, the rule of non-liability successful the European Union, with the indispensable exceptions elaborate successful assorted laws.

For example, Section 230 was 1 of the reasons a territory justice successful California cited successful her ruling to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Myanmar refugees successful a akin assertion that Meta had failed to curb hatred code that fuelled the Rohingya genocide.

The aspiration for level accountability was further dampened by the US Supreme Court determination successful Twitter v Taamneh, successful which it ruled against plaintiffs who sought to found that societal media platforms transportation work for contented posted connected them.

The immunity offered to platforms has travel astatine a precocious cost, particularly for victims of harm successful places wherever platforms bash not person carnal offices.

This is wherefore a determination similar the 1 by the Kenyan courts is simply a invited development; it restores anticipation that victims of level harm person an alternate way to recourse, 1 that refocuses quality rights into the halfway of the treatment connected level accountability.

The justification for harmless harbour provisions similar Section 230 has ever been to support “nascent” technologies from being smothered by the multiplicity of suits. However, by now, the ascendant societal media platforms are neither nascent nor successful request of protection. They person some the monetary and method wherewithal to prioritise radical implicit profits, but take not to.

As the Kenyan cases cascade done the judicial process, determination is cautious optimism that law and quality rights instrumentality that has taken basal successful African countries tin connection a indispensable reprieve for level arrogance.

Mercy Mutemi represents Fisseha Tekle successful the lawsuit outlined successful the article. 

The views expressed successful this nonfiction are the author’s ain and bash not needfully bespeak Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.