For sixty years, the people of Northern Kenya and other border counties lived under a shadow of suspicion. An extra layer of vetting — applied selectively on the basis of ethnicity, religion, and geography — treated Kenyan citizens as potential foreigners in their own land.
When President William Ruto signed the Presidential Proclamation in Wajir in February 2025, abolishing this discriminatory practice, it represented more than administrative reform. It was a long-overdue affirmation of equal citizenship under Articles 12 and 27 of the Constitution.
Yet The Standard newspaper and KTN News responded not with context or balance, but with a familiar script of scepticism and alarm. Their coverage has consistently framed this act of inclusion as little more than President Ruto’s electoral calculation — a narrative that conveniently echoes earlier opposition attacks, including those advanced by Rigathi Gachagua and his allies.
Across Mandera, Wajir, Garissa and beyond, residents have expressed not just frustration but deep dismay. They see this as the media once again reducing their hard-won dignity to a political transaction, reinforcing the very “othering” that the reform sought to dismantle.
This is not mere disagreement over emphasis. It is a failure of journalistic duty that reveals deeper patterns of bias, commercial sensationalism, and elite detachment from the realities of Kenya’s frontier communities.
The Loaded Language of Scepticism at The Standard
The Standard set an early and revealing tone. Headlines such as “Expert opposes lifting of vetting for ID seekers in Northern Kenya” and “Why some are sceptical about Ruto’s ban on ID vetting process” employed loaded terminology — “lifting,” “ban,” “scrap” — that portrayed the removal of extra, discriminatory vetting as the reckless abandonment of a neutral security tool.
This framing ignored the historical reality: the system was never applied uniformly. It was a post-Shifta measure that disproportionately burdened Somali and Muslim communities in specific counties, creating generations of “stateless” Kenyans denied education, employment, and political participation.
By centring security experts and sceptical politicians while giving comparatively less prominence to affected communities or constitutional arguments, the paper amplified doubt rather than understanding.
Later coverage shifted toward scandal, with prominent treatment of alleged ID fraud networks and headlines evoking “citizenship for sale.” While accountability on fraud is essential, the reporting often blurred timelines — many exposed cases predated the 2025 reform — and failed to balance scrutiny with follow-up on the positive impacts: increased legitimate registrations, restored dignity, and greater access to services. The result was a cumulative narrative of risk and opportunism rather than one of corrective justice.
KTN’s Spectacle of Alarmism
KTN News took sensationalism further. Its 2026 prime-time specials Auctioning Our Identity and Uraia Wa Kuuzwa deployed dramatic narration and rhetorical questions: “What happens when Kenya’s first line of identity security is compromised?” and “Who is enabling it? Who is benefiting?” These programmes rightly exposed fraudulent networks and raised legitimate concerns about document integrity.
However, their packaging — linking the reform directly to sovereignty threats and 2027 electoral risks without sufficient historical or contextual grounding — turned a policy correction into a national security panic.
The specials gave limited airtime to the discriminatory origins of the old vetting regime or the voices of those who had endured it. Instead, they fed a narrative of chaos and betrayal that aligned uncomfortably with opposition talking points. For communities that had finally seen a president acknowledge their second-class treatment, watching their IDs portrayed as threats to the republic was a painful reminder that their full belonging remains contested in significant sections of the national media.
A Clearer Contrast Elsewhere
Other outlets demonstrated that more responsible approaches were possible. Nation Media Group maintained internal diversity: news pieces carried government explanations that security would be upheld through technology and data systems, while editorials urged careful implementation and broader consultation. It engaged risks without reducing the story to conspiracy.
The Star offered a stronger rights-based lens from the outset, emphasising the end of ethnic profiling and the constitutional demand for equal treatment. Citizen Digital reported the political dimensions factually, noting potential 2027 implications without descending into alarm or vote-harvesting reductionism.
These differences are not accidental. They reflect varying commitments to source diversity, contextual depth, and resistance to the easy pull of conflict-driven narratives. The Standard and KTN too often defaulted to Nairobi-centric security assumptions and selective outrage, sidelining the human and constitutional dimensions most relevant to the communities directly affected.
The Human and National Cost
Residents have been clear in their dismay. Elders and youth leaders describe the coverage as insulting to decades of advocacy, petitions, and lived struggle. By echoing claims that the reform was primarily about harvesting votes in opposition-leaning areas, these outlets have delegitimised a constitutional gain and revived stereotypes that portray Northern Kenya as a perpetual liability rather than an integral part of the republic.
This matters beyond one policy. In a multi-ethnic democracy still grappling with historical marginalisation, media framing shapes public consent for inclusion. When major outlets consistently apply heightened scrutiny and political cynicism to reforms benefiting frontier communities while offering more sympathetic or contextual treatment elsewhere, they perpetuate unequal standards. They also risk eroding trust among citizens who already feel peripheral to national narratives.
Commercial pressures play a role — sensational headlines and dramatic specials drive engagement— but they cannot excuse the abdication of balance, context, and fairness. Journalistic standards demand more than relaying elite scepticism or opposition talking points.
They require deliberate efforts to centre marginalised voices, distinguish between discriminatory mechanisms and legitimate verification, and avoid language that prejudges policy intent.
A Demand for Accountability in Coverage
The Standard and KTN owe Northern Kenya — and all Kenyans committed to genuine equality — a more honest reckoning with their coverage. The reform was imperfect and requires robust safeguards against fraud. But it was also a necessary correction to a system that had violated constitutional principles for too long.
Framing it primarily as electoral opportunism does not serve truth, accountability, or national cohesion. It serves a tired script of suspicion toward the periphery.
As Kenya approaches 2027, the quality of media discourse on inclusion, security, and citizenship will test our collective commitment to the Constitution.
Residents of the North East are not asking for uncritical praise. They are demanding coverage that treats their citizenship as a fact, not a favour or a threat. The eyes of the frontier are watching — not just the politicians, but the institutions that shape how the nation sees itself. It is past time for The Standard, KTN, and others to rise to that responsibility.
Mr. Siyad Jimale— Executive Director of The Horizon Analysts and Researchers Network
