18 December 2025 – Today, the High Court of Kenya delivered its judgment in NAYA-Kenya & Jackline Karanja v. Attorney General & 4 Others (Petition No. 428 of 2018), striking down unlawful bans that blocked public access to reproductive health information and services. The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the Network for Adolescent and Youth of Africa–Kenya (NAYA-Kenya), Jackline Karanja and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) advocates welcome this landmark decision.
Hon. Justice Chacha Mwita ruled that actions taken in 2018 by the Director of Medical Services (DMS), the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board (KMPDB), and the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) were unlawful and unconstitutional. These institutions had blocked a lawful public awareness campaign by Marie Stopes Kenya (MSK), providing critical information on access to reproductive health services and banned MSK from offering abortion care, including post abortion care, which is an emergency treatment. The Court confirmed that government agencies have no authority to censor evidence-based health information or interfere with access to lawful reproductive health care.
This judgment is a major victory for women, girls, and young people in Kenya. It sends a clear message that state institutions must act within the law and cannot stand in the way of lifesaving sexual and reproductive health information and services.
Background to the Case
The case arose after MSK, working with the Ministry of Health and Radio Africa Group, launched a public awareness campaign to educate the public, especially adolescents and young people, about the dangers of unsafe abortion and where to seek safe and legal reproductive health care, including post-abortion care. The campaign aimed to address the rising complications and deaths caused by unsafe abortions in Kenya. It highlighted its risks, the stigma faced by women and girls, and where to seek confidential counselling and support.
The Court’s Judgement
In its judgment, the Court made the following findings:
- Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB):
The Court found that KFCB had no legal authority to ban the public awareness campaign. - Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board (KMPDB):
The Court held that KMPDB’s powers apply only to individual health practitioners and dentists, not organizations. It had no authority to discipline MSK as an institution. - Director of Medical Services (DMS):
The Court found that the DMS did not have the power to ban MSK from offering post-abortion care and the decision was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional.
Why This Judgment Matters
Unsafe abortion remains a leading cause of preventable maternal complications and death among women and girls in Kenya, particularly adolescents and young people. An estimated seven women die each day from abortion-related complications. In 2025, a joint study by the Ministry of Health, the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) and Guttmacher revealed that between April 2023 and May 2024, there were over 792,000 induced abortions in Kenya alone, equating to about 57.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–49. This is a clear indication that access to reproductive health services and information needs to continue, to ensure women and girls can make informed decisions, prevent avoidable deaths, and seek safe, legal care when needed.
“The Court has sent a strong message that state agencies cannot misrepresent the law or block lawful abortion services. This ruling protects both health workers providing care and women seeking it and brings much-needed clarity to Kenya’s constitutional framework.”
Martin Onyango, Associate Director, Africa Legal Strategies, Center for Reproductive Rights
This judgment makes it clear that public institutions must follow the law and stop interfering with access to health care information and services. It affirms that access to reproductive health information and care is a constitutional right, and that health providers and institutions offering these services must be protected.
“The Court’s decision is an affirmative recognition that unlawful regulatory overreach cannot be used to undermine access to lawful health services. By quashing these decisions, the High Court has upheld constitutional accountability and protected institutions and practitioners from arbitrary and unlawful action. 7 years is a long time to wait, but finally, this matter is settled.”
Timothy Thondu, Legal Adviser, Center for Reproductive Rights, Africa
We call on the Government of Kenya to:
- Fully and immediately implement this judgment and ensure that no institution interferes with lawful reproductive health information or services.
- Provide clear, accurate public guidance on access to legal abortion and post-abortion care, in line with the Constitution and public health evidence.
- End stigma and censorship around reproductive health services and information so that women and young people can seek care without fear or discrimination.
For years, government officers have acted with impunity, denying young people access to sexual and reproductive health and rights information, despite the clear need to empower them to make informed decisions about their sexuality. This ruling is an affirmation that young people, health providers and those in the education sector have the right to provide accurate sexual and reproductive health and rights information.
Victor Rasugu, Executive Director, NAYA-Kenya
The Center for Reproductive Rights is pleased to have represented NAYA-Kenya and Jackline Karanja, the petitioners in this case. This constitutional victory must now lead to real change, accessible services, trained providers, and the free flow of accurate information. Together with other SRHR advocates, we will continue to advance reproductive rights through the courts, policy reform, and community engagement, because no one should be denied information or health care services that could save their lives.
