Kenya’s proposed Creative Economy Bill, 2026 has drawn sharp scrutiny from arts, culture and digital-sector stakeholders, who say the draft law risks creating a heavily regulated creative sector without providing the legal, financial and institutional support needed for artists to earn from their work.
In a consolidated memorandum submitted to the State Department for Creative Economy, the Creative Economy Working Group welcomed the Bill’s broader intent, including the proposed repeal of the colonial-era Films and Stage Plays Act and the separation of promotional and regulatory functions. However, the group warned that the Bill, as currently drafted, is “heavily weighted toward institutional control rather than economic enablement.”
A central concern is that although the Bill is titled as a creative economy law, its institutional design is seen as overwhelmingly focused on audiovisual content. Stakeholders argue that musicians, theatre practitioners, visual artists, fashion designers, writers and digital creators are left without a clear promotional home, while the proposed Kenya Audio-Visual and Cinema Commission and Kenya Audio-Visual Regulatory Authority dominate the framework.
The memorandum also criticises Clause 5(2), which excludes intellectual property rights from the scope of the Bill. Stakeholders say this undermines the foundation of the creative economy, since music, film, fashion, literature, performance and digital content derive much of their economic value from copyright, licensing, royalties and image rights. The submissions recommend replacing the exclusion with a savings clause that preserves the authority of existing IP institutions while requiring coordination with the Kenya Copyright Board and other relevant bodies.
Digital creators raised particular alarm over licensing and classification powers. The Bill gives the proposed Authority powers over streaming and online platform operations, but stakeholders say the terms are not defined clearly enough to distinguish large platforms from individual creators running YouTube, TikTok or podcast accounts. Without revenue or user thresholds, the memorandum warns, ordinary creators could be treated as unlicensed operators.
The classification regime has also been flagged as potentially unworkable for fast-moving online content. Creators who publish daily or hourly could face delays or costs if every audiovisual work must be classified or self-classified before publication. Stakeholders say such a requirement could make the 24-hour digital content cycle “legally impossible to maintain” if fees or bureaucratic approvals are imposed per upload.
Freedom of expression concerns feature prominently. The Bill permits classification or restriction of works on grounds including morality and cultural considerations, but the memorandum says those terms are too vague and could be used to suppress political satire, religious critique, LGBTQ+ narratives or experimental art. Stakeholders recommend aligning restrictions strictly with Article 33(2) of the Constitution, which limits expression only in defined areas such as incitement to violence, hate speech and propaganda for war.
Another major concern is the Authority’s power to issue takedown orders. The Bill allows takedowns for unclassified works or content that contravenes other written laws, but stakeholders say it does not require prior notice, written reasons or a counter-notice process. In the digital economy, they argue, removing content during a viral window can cause permanent financial and reputational harm even if a creator later wins an appeal.
Funding is also contested. The memorandum says the Bill relies too heavily on existing funding arrangements connected to the Sports and Arts Fund, which stakeholders argue does not guarantee a dedicated, predictable budget for the creative sector. They propose a Creative Economy Development Fund supported by a statutory budget allocation, licensing revenues, a levy on streaming-platform revenues, development partner contributions and other dedicated sources.
The Register of Creatives has attracted criticism as well. Stakeholders warn that if registration is mandatory or fee-based, it could become a barrier for young, informal, rural or low-income creators. They recommend that the register be voluntary, free to search through a public online portal, and not a precondition for earning a living from creative work.
The Bill’s silence on artificial intelligence is another gap identified by stakeholders. The submissions call for regulations on AI-generated content labelling, protection of artists’ voices and likenesses from unauthorised digital replication, and rules on the use of Kenyan creative works as AI training data.
The Creative Economy Working Group is calling for a structured technical review involving musicians, visual artists, theatre practitioners, digital content creators, fashion designers and animators before the Bill proceeds further. The group says the law should not merely create new institutions, but should help Kenyan creatives “work, earn, and invest in their craft without unnecessary institutional friction.”