When veteran news anchor Jeff Koinange welcomed former Kakamega Senator and Democratic Congress Party (DCP) Deputy Party Leader Cleophas Malala to Citizen TV’s Sunday Live, viewers anticipated a heated discussion on 2027 coalition building, opposition realignments, and grassroots governance. What captured public attention instead was an unscripted sparring featuring a rapid exchange of colourful nicknames and personal jibes.

During the broadcast, Koinange tagged himself as hailing from Nairobi’s famed “Koinange Street” while jokingly dubbing Malala “Maziwa Mala” from “Malala Street”. Jeff quickly followed with the label “party hopper,” accusing the politician of shifting loyalties and suggesting his next stop would be Linda Mwananchi. Malala fired back in equal measure, branding Jeff the “grasshopper” of Kenyan broadcasting for leaping across newsrooms throughout his career, before escalating to call him the “Atwoli of the media” and “Jeff wa kukaranga nywele” (Jeff who straightens his hair). Koinange brushed off the hair jibe with “nitakaranga tu” (I will keep straightening it) and retaliated by telling Malala that Nyandarua Senator John Methu had eclipsed him and “stolen his thunder”.

In this case, where does robust journalistic scrutiny end, and where does actionable misconduct begin?

Under the Second Schedule of Kenya’s Media Council Act, 2013, the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism binds both media practitioners and broadcasting enterprises to strict professional standards.

Article 3 and Article 4 of the Code mandate that journalists uphold integrity, professional decorum, and uncompromised respect for human dignity. From a strict reading of these provisions, personal labelling, especially on a prime-time broadcast, flirts with unprofessionalism. When a talk-show host invites a guest to a studio, traditional broadcasting decorum dictates hospitality and impartiality. Pinning pejorative tags on an interviewee risks degenerating a serious civic platform into an arena for schoolyard taunts, potentially breaching the mandate of decorum.

Critics argue that an anchor of Koinange’s stature should challenge politiciabs and public servants through forensic inquiry into policy and manifestos, rather than resorting to personal epithets like “party hopper.” Under this interpretation, an unprovoked jab damages the perceived fairness of the host and undermines the solemnity of public interest journalism.

However, section 1 (Accuracy and Fairness) and Section 5 (Right of Reply) of the Code place heavy emphasis on balance. Koinange did not silence Malala or speak over him in malice. Instead, Malala seized the microphone, delivering a stinging rebuttal that placed Koinange’s own career in the spotlight, comparing him to Francis Atwoli and calling him out on his signature styled hair.

Broadcast formats must also be evaluated according to their genre. The Code of Conduct urges adherence to “good taste and decency,” but regulatory oversight recognizes distinct latitude between a midday news bulletin and a political talk show.

Should regulatory authorities censor Jeff Koinange or penalize the station? No.

Censorship and statutory penalties require clear evidence of malicious defamation, hate speech, targeted character assassination, or a denial of the right to reply that damages the subject. None of those thresholds were breached.

Nevertheless, the incident offers a cautionary lesson for Royal Media Services and other broadcasters. The boundary between banter and belittling is razor-thin. While Koinange walked the tightrope successfully on this occasion, journalists are always on firmer ethical ground when they dismantle inconsistent political records with cold, documented facts rather than catchy street monikers and cosmetic digs.