The High Court has directed that a defamation case filed by former Cabinet Secretary Richard Echesa against Seth Panyako be heard on January 22, 2026.
In the suit, Echesa is seeking injunctive orders over what he describes as defamatory statements allegedly made against him and published through various media platforms.
According to court documents, Echesa argues that the statements were presented as factual assertions rather than opinion, and were deliberately calculated to portray him as a murderer, arsonist, violent criminal, and a threat to public safety. He contends that the publications imputed the commission of serious criminal offences, exposing him to hatred, ridicule, contempt, and public odium.
The former CS has categorically denied all the allegations, describing them as false, malicious, reckless, and entirely without factual or legal basis. He maintains that he has never led, commanded, or participated in any violent group or criminal activity, nor has he ever engaged in arson, homicide, or any unlawful conduct as alleged. He further states that no criminal charges have ever been preferred against him in relation to the claims.
Echesa has also faulted the YouTube channels and media outlets named as the second and third defendants, including Obinna TV, accusing them of exercising full editorial and operational control over the broadcasts while failing to verify the allegations, seek his response, or take down the content despite a formal demand. He argues that this failure renders them jointly and severally liable.
According to the pleadings, Echesa says the publications have subjected him to intense public ridicule, hostility, and emotional distress, including alarming calls and messages from colleagues, family members, and members of the public.
He further claims that his reputation as a former Cabinet Secretary and current chairperson of a national statutory body has been gravely damaged, eroding public confidence in his leadership and adversely affecting his ability to effectively discharge his official duties.
Through his advocates, Kimani & Company Advocates, Echesa states that he issued a formal demand for retraction and an apology on December 5, 2025, but alleges that the defendants ignored or declined to comply—conduct he cites as evidence of malice and reckless disregard for the truth.
Among the reliefs sought, Echesa is asking the court to:
Declare the statements defamatory
Issue a permanent injunction restraining further publication
Compel an unqualified retraction and unconditional apology, to be published on a full page of a national daily newspaper
Award general and aggravated damages, as well as costs and interest
In interim directions, the court ordered that the application be served upon the respondents and scheduled the matter for inter-partes hearing on January 22, 2026.