Last month, the President signed Executive Order No. 1 of 2018 on the Organisation of Government which, inter alia, assigned functions and institutions among Ministries and State Departments. One interesting new change in the structure of the Government is that Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) and Kenya Film Commission (KFC) are now listed under the State Department for Broadcasting and Telecommunications in the ICT Ministry. In addition the Ministry’s functions now includes overall responsibility for policies on film development in Kenya and the development of the country’s film industry.
This may all seem like a mundane bureaucratic detail but in reality it may well represent a fundamental shift in Kenya’s approach to the development of the creative economy and the important contribution of the film industry. But like every good story, there is a plot twist: the only thing that KFCB and KFC seem to agree on is that they are better off separate than together. Lately, the two lead film agencies have been at loggerheads (see video clips here and here) over how best the film industry should be regulated for the development of this vital pillar of the creative and cultural industries.
This blogger has come across a recent High Court judgment in the case of Republic v Attorney General & 2 others Ex parte Tom Odoyo Oloo  eKLR in which the appointment of the chairman of Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) was challenged for being unconstitutional. In the earlier case of Republic v. Attorney General & 3 Others Ex-Parte Tom Odoyo Oloo  eKLR discussed on this blog here, the High Court struck down the appointment of Polycarp Igathe as ACA Chairman and less than one week later on 24th December 2015, the Cabinet Secretary responsible for ACA appointed Igathe as ACA Chairman to take effect from 17th April 2015, the effective date that was the subject of the Court’s orders in the 2015 case. According to the applicant in the present case, this re-appointment of Igathe was both illegal and unconstitutional.
“Whereas the President had the power to appoint the Chairman of the Anti-Counterfeit Agency, that appointment had to be in compliance with the Constitution and the relevant Legislation since, as I have stated herein above, the President in undertaking his executive functions does so on behalf of the people of the Republic of Kenya and has to bow to the will of Kenyans as expressed in their document delegating their sovereign powers to inter alia the executive, the Constitution. It is the Constitution which sets out the terms under which the delegated sovereign power is to be exercised and those to whom the power is delegated must adhere to it…” – Excerpt from the Judgment by Mr. Justice G.V. Odunga on December 16th 2015.
Towards the end of December 2015, the High Court, in one of its boldest judgments yet, struck down President Kenyatta’s appointment of Polycarp Igathe as Chairman of the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA). Last month, the Cabinet Secretary for Industrialisation and Entreprise Development responded to the High Court judgment by (re-)appointing Igathe as ACA Chairman vide Gazette Notice No. 368 published on January 22nd 2016.
**Update (08/02/16): This blogger has been reliably informed that the above (re-)appointment of Igathe by the Cabinet Secretary has been challenged and an order of stay has been issued by the High Court. More details to follow.
Hon Kahinda Otafiire (outgoing Chair Council of Ministers) handing over to the Incoming Chair Council of Ministers Hon Margaret Mwanakatwe – Lusaka, Zambia November 2015
Readers may know that last week the 39th and the 15th Sessions of the Administrative Council and Council of Ministers of African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) respectively, took place in Lusaka, Zambia.
Zambia’s Minister of Commerce Margaret Mwanakatwe opened the 39th Session which saw Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA) Chief Executive Officer Anthony Bwembya take over as Chairperson of the ARIPO Administrative Council.
This blogger has come across the recently published Gazette Notice No. 6612 in which the Chairman of the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) has appointed 31 persons to be inspectors for the purposes of the enforcement of the provisions of the Anti-Counterfeit Act. Several commentators have raised several serious concerns about ethnic and regional balancing in the appointments although there is no news of any legal or constitutionality challenges filed to challenge the appointments.
Readers of this blog will recall a previous report here that the Anti-Counterfeit Agency (ACA) reinvigorated under the chairmanship of Polycarp Igathe took the unprecedented step of sending four of its senior officers on compulsory leave following numerous complaints from manufacturers, specifically, owners of intellectual property (IP) rights, against the officers who are allegedly engaged in misconduct and defeating the very purpose for which they were engaged in combating counterfeiting. The ACA officers sent on compulsory leave included; Deputy Director for Enforcement, Prosecution and Legal Services Mr. Johnson Adera, Assistant Director for Enforcement Mr. Abdikadir Mohamed, Anti-Counterfeit Inspector II Mr. Weldon Kiprotich Sigei and Anti-Counterfeit Inspector I, Mr. Sammy Arekai Sarich.
This blogger has recently come across a judgment by the Court of Appeal in Nigeria in the long-running case of MCSN v. Details (Nig.) Ltd (CA/L/506/1999). In this case an exparte order had been obtained by MCSN against Details for unauthorized use of musical works. Details raised objections on the ground that MCSK lacked locus standi to bring the action. Details noted that since MCSN had provided evidence that it represented more than two million artistes, it was practically performing the functions of a collecting society and therefore required the approval of the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC) to carry on the activities of a collecting society.
MCSN denied suing as a collecting society but rather as an owner, assignee and exclusive licensee as contemplated in Section 15 of the Act. Having considered all the evidence, inclusive of the deed of assignments executed with members of MCSN which clearly spelt out that the activities to be undertaken were those within the purview of the attributes of a collecting society, the court ruled that: “it is for the foregoing reasons that I have come to the inexorable conclusion, after deep reflection, that the plaintiff is a collecting society. Not having been registered pursuant to Section 32B(4) of the Copyright Act, it cannot be permitted to operate as such body. To do so would be tantamount to subverting not only the letter but also the spirit of the copyright laws of this country”.