In a sharp escalation of a war of words, celebrated lawyer Danstan Omari has put media personality Oga Obinna on notice, demanding an immediate apology and removal of a podcast episode where a guest accused Omari of corruption. The demand, delivered in a stern letter from Omari's legal team, sets the stage for a high-profile defamation case that could have wide-ranging implications for Kenya's burgeoning digital media landscape.

The controversy stems from a December 15, 2025, live-streamed episode of Obinna TV, where a guest, political commentator Adrian Oluoch, made damaging remarks about Omari's professional conduct. The core of the dispute is Oluoch's allegation that “the legal system is very corrupt, so the moment you have someone like Danstan Omari, he knows who to bribe.” This statement, Omari's lawyers contend, is not only false but deeply injurious to a reputation built over years of high-profile legal work.

A Reputation on the Line

Danstan Omari is a formidable figure in Kenya's legal circles, known for taking on complex and often controversial cases. His journey from a high school teacher to a top advocate, starting his law studies at the age of 40, is a well-documented story of determination. The demand letter, drafted by the equally prominent lawyer Shadrack Wambui, argues that Obinna, as the host, failed in his duty by allowing and even encouraging the unsubstantiated claims to air without challenge.

The letter explicitly warns Obinna to remove the podcast from all social media platforms and issue a public apology within 12 hours. Failure to comply, it notes, will trigger the immediate filing of a lawsuit, holding Obinna liable for the damage caused to Omari's character and career.

Digital Media and Defamation

This confrontation highlights a growing tension in Kenya: the line between freedom of expression on platforms like YouTube and the legal responsibility to prevent defamation. Under Kenyan law, defamation—making a false statement that harms someone's reputation—can be pursued as a civil wrong. For a claim to succeed, the plaintiff must prove the statement was false, published to a third party, and caused reputational harm.

This is not Obinna's first encounter with defamation claims. He was recently awarded KES 6 million in a case where he was the plaintiff, setting a precedent that underscores the serious financial consequences of reputational damage in the digital age. Legal experts note that while apology and retraction can reduce damages, they are not a complete defense against a defamation suit.

The standoff is now a critical test case for Kenyan content creators. As podcasts and live streams command ever-larger audiences, the legal onus on hosts to moderate content and challenge potentially defamatory statements is coming into sharp focus. The outcome of this dispute will undoubtedly be watched closely by the entire media fraternity, signaling a new era of accountability for what is said online.