In response to the High Court ruling that it has jurisdiction to hear and consider the merits of the case, in which Meta is accused of promoting content that led to ethnic violence and killings in Ethiopia from 2020 to 2022, Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International, said:
“Today’s ruling is a positive step towards holding big tech companies accountable for contributing to human rights abuses. It paves the way for justice and serves notice to big tech platforms that the era of impunity is over.
“Communities and individuals affected by corporate human rights abuses committed by multinationals often struggle to access justice, in part because companies like Meta can use their terms of service to restrict jurisdiction to courts out of reach of many victims.
Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International
“This ruling offers hope that marginalized groups can access justice no matter where they are in the world. The idea of looking at countries outside the US and Europe as mere markets where profits can be made in the absence of accountability must be challenged.
“It’s time for these platforms to abide by their responsibilities and prioritize human rights over profit.”
Background to the case against Meta
The case filed against Meta raises substantial questions of law regarding Facebook’s use of algorithms and its impact on rights protected by Kenya’s Bill of Rights and broadly in international and human rights law. Since Courts in Kenya are vested with jurisdiction to determine whether a right has been violated and to interpret the constitution among other things, the Court confirmed that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter on this basis. The Court went on to say that, as stipulated by section 165 of the Constitution of Kenya, such cases that raise substantial issues of law must be heard by an uneven number of judges therefore the matter has now been sent to the Chief Justice for empanelment or the appointment of the judges to hear the matter. After the Court handed down its decision, Meta’s legal representatives asked for the Court’s permission to appeal and continue to seek dismissal of the petition.
Ethiopians, Abrham Meareg and Fisseha Tekle, a former Amnesty International researcher, together with The Katiba Institute, accuse Meta, Facebook’s parent company, of promoting harmful content during the armed conflict in northern Ethiopia from November 2020 to November 2022.
Abrham Meareg’s father, Meareg Amare, who was a University Professor at Bahir Dar University in northern Ethiopia, was killed following inciteful posts on Facebook in November 2021. Fisseha Tekle faced online hate for his human rights work in Ethiopia.
The Katiba Institute brought the case before the court in the public interest given that the viral hate and violence on Meta’s Facebook platform goes against Kenya’s constitutional provisions.
The case was supported and backed by major human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Global Witness, Article 19, Kenyan Human Rights Commission, Kenya’s National Integration and Cohesion Commission among others who joined the case as interested parties.
The petitioners argue that the Facebook platform’s algorithms amplified inciteful, hateful and dangerous content which contributed to significant human rights violations.
Meta challenged the jurisdiction of Kenyan courts, arguing that their terms of service restrict claims against them to US courts.
Kenyan courts have previously allowed trials in cases where former Facebook content moderators sued Meta for unlawful dismissal, as well as in the case of Daniel Motaung, a former moderator who is suing Meta for its union-busting and to seek accountability for the mental health issues he suffered while working.
Header image of the lawyers involved in the Meta case by EARO
