Kisumu High Court: Eye Radio Website Taken Down by Court Order

• Eye Radio's website and 23-year digital archive have been offline since September 10 after its hosting provider, Hostinger, acted on an alleged interim court order.
• The order stemmed from a defamation lawsuit filed by Capital Pay International Limited, an electronic payment company whose operations have faced scrutiny.
• The document, dated September 7, reportedly bore the name of Kisumu High Court Judge Joe M. Omido, but a judge later stated Eye Media was not a party before the court.
• Eye Radio claims its four disputed reports were based on official government statements, UN investigations, and other credible sources.
• The broadcaster is now seeking a court order to compel Hostinger to restore its website and the public's access to its archive.

The abrupt Capital Pay International website takedown has not only silenced a key media voice but also severed public access to Eye Radio's invaluable 23-year archive of news and information.

South Sudan's prominent broadcaster, Eye Radio, has seen its primary website and extensive 23-year digital archive rendered unavailable since September 10. The disruption occurred after its hosting provider, Hostinger, took the site offline, reportedly in response to an emailed document presented as an interim court order. This action, which led visitors to encounter a '404 page not found' message, was initiated without any prior notification of a legal complaint being served to the media outlet.

The alleged judicial directive stemmed from a lawsuit initiated by Capital Pay International Limited, an electronic payment firm. Capital Pay International specializes in digital payment and e-government services within South Sudan, including the management of systems for collecting government fees and revenues. The company's operational practices, particularly its revenue-collection arrangements, have previously drawn scrutiny from both the United Nations and independent media organizations.

The document that prompted the `Hostinger website shutdown court order` was dated September 7 and reportedly bore the name of Kisumu High Court Judge Joe M. Omido. It was utilized to instruct Hostinger to disable the `Eye Radio website taken down Kisumu court order`. This directive followed an application made by Apex Legal Handlers, acting on behalf of Capital Pay International. The `Eye Radio defamation lawsuit` reportedly centers on four specific reports published by the broadcaster, which Capital Pay deems defamatory.

However, Eye Radio maintains that its reports were meticulously based on official government statements, press releases, investigations conducted by the United Nations, and other credible sources. During subsequent proceedings held in Kisumu, Kenya, on a recent Thursday, Eye Radio's legal representative informed the court that Eye Media, the corporate entity behind the broadcaster, was listed among the defendants. Contradicting this, the presiding judge stated that Eye Media was not among the parties formally before the court, leading Eye Radio to seek urgent clarification regarding this significant discrepancy between the received document and the court's official position in the `Kisumu High Court interim order dispute`.

The abrupt `Capital Pay International website takedown` has not only silenced a key media voice but also severed public access to Eye Radio's invaluable 23-year archive of news and information. This incident underscores critical issues surrounding `South Sudan media freedom Kenya court` jurisdiction and the enforcement of digital content restrictions across borders. The broadcaster is actively pursuing a new court order, seeking to compel Hostinger to restore its website and, by extension, public access to its extensive historical content.

This situation highlights the complexities of enforcing and disputing cross-jurisdictional court orders, particularly concerning digital content and media organizations, raising questions about due process and the potential for abuse in defamation claims against media outlets.

This incident highlights the complexities of enforcing and disputing cross-jurisdictional court orders, particularly concerning digital content and media organizations. Lawyers should advise clients on the due diligence required when responding to foreign court orders and the potential for abuse of process in defamation claims against media outlets.

Source: Original reporting via the disputed court order