Televised Visibility, Public Acceptance, and Judicial Legitimacy in Kenya's Presidential Election Petitions (2013-2022)

This study examines how the live broadcasting of presidential election petitions in Kenya's Supreme Court from 2013 to 2022 influenced public acceptance of judicial verdicts and perceptions of legitimacy. While courtroom broadcasting is often praised for enhancing transparency as a key reform, its broader democratic effects remain contested, particularly in politically polarised societies. Drawing on survey data from 250 participants in Nairobi City County and focus group discussions in Kibra and Roysambu, we investigated the interplay between televised judicial visibility, media framing, and audience characteristics in shaping public responses. Findings reveal that broadcasting the proceedings fostered greater awareness of procedures and familiarity with judicial rituals. However, this exposure did not cultivate enduring trust. Rather, acceptance of Supreme Court decisions proved conditional, sporadic, and deeply influenced by factors such as political affiliation, education level, and media consumption habits. Respondents generally recognised the constitutional finality of judicial outcomes, yet this recognition often reflected pragmatic resignation rather than a genuine conviction in the impartiality of the decision-making process. Media framing emerged as a critical influence: mainstream television coverage tended to encourage procedural acceptance, whereas social media amplified scepticism. Findings demonstrate that broadcasting does not neutralise political interpretations through transparency alone. Instead, televised justice operates within uneven media ecologies and pre-existing political identities, yielding inconsistent levels of acceptance. While courtroom broadcasting may bolster constitutional stability in the short term, without ongoing efforts to build communicative legitimacy, it risks reinforcing fragile judicial authority