US Journalist Margot Kiser Sues Kenya Over Deportation and Immigration Ban

American freelance journalist Margot Kiser has sued Kenya’s Ministry of Interior and the Directorate of Immigration over her deportation in October 2025 and a subsequent decision to classify her as a prohibited immigrant.

Kiser, who had been reporting on the Shakahola tragedy, alleges that officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), accompanied by armed police, forcibly removed her from her residence in Mombasa. The International Press Association of East Africa (IPAEA) has questioned the circumstances surrounding her deportation.

According to IPAEA, Kiser claims that officers seized her phones, computers and other electronic equipment before taking her to Nairobi and placing her on a flight to the United States. She says she was denied access to a lawyer and prevented from contacting her son during the operation. Although the flight was bound for New York, she later left the journey in Dubai rather than continue to the United States.

Kiser’s deportation followed her reporting on the Shakahola killings, a major criminal case involving the deaths of followers of controversial preacher Paul Mackenzie. She had reportedly raised concerns with child welfare authorities over allegations that minors, including children linked to Mackenzie, were being subjected to prolonged fasting. Her reporting formed part of wider scrutiny of the activities that later became the subject of criminal proceedings against Mackenzie and his associates.

The Kenyan government has maintained that Kiser’s conduct posed a threat to national security and the country’s moral order. However, Kiser and organisations supporting her say authorities have not publicly provided detailed evidence to support those claims. This has raised questions among media rights advocates about whether her reporting on Shakahola influenced the decision to deport her.

The dispute continued after Kiser attempted to return to Kenya. IPAEA says she obtained a Class K residency permit following her deportation but was denied entry when she tried to re-enter the country in March 2026.

According to her account, she only learnt at that point that immigration authorities had classified her as a prohibited immigrant, despite her residency authorisation.

Her lawsuit challenges the legality of both her deportation and the subsequent immigration designation. She argues that the government’s actions violated her constitutional rights.

IPAEA and other press freedom advocates say the case raises concerns about the conditions under which journalists operate when investigating sensitive matters of public interest. They argue that the government should provide clear explanations for decisions affecting reporters and ensure that immigration powers are exercised within the law.