Fred Machoka sues Robert Alai for Ksh.60M over alleged defamation

Machoka, widely recognized for his long-running show Roga Roga, filed the suit through his lawyer, Danstan Omari.

In court documents, he claims Alai published false and malicious statements on his verified Facebook account, directly targeting Machoka and harming his personal and professional reputation.

The controversial post, which tagged Machoka’s official Facebook profile, read in part:

“@Fred Obachi Machoka OGW I feel your ethnic rage. It’s just ethnic. Your problem is supply of ARVs not Presidency… Does HIV bring insanity nowadays?”

According to Omari, the post left no ambiguity about its intended subject, as Alai specifically mentioned and tagged Machoka by name. The suit argues that the statements were not only untrue but were shared with deliberate malice, aiming to tarnish Machoka's public image.

“The assertions made by the defendant are entirely baseless, defamatory, and damaging to our client’s long-standing reputation as a respected media personality,” reads part of the petition.

In a sworn affidavit, Machoka categorically denied the allegations, asserting that he is HIV negative, has never taken antiretroviral medication, and has never been diagnosed with any form of mental illness.

He further challenged the credibility of Alai’s post, stating that it is medically and legally unfounded for anyone to publicly speculate or claim knowledge of another person’s health status without medical evidence.

Addressing the allegations of tribalism, Machoka emphasized his unwavering commitment to national unity and social cohesion. “I have never engaged in or promoted any form of ethnic-based discourse in my decades-long media career,” he stated.

Machoka’s legal team also highlighted his impressive career spanning 47 years in the broadcast industry, where he has earned respect and recognition both locally and internationally. With over 480,000 followers on Facebook, the suit claims that Alai’s tagging of Machoka significantly amplified the reach and impact of the defamatory statements.

The case, now before the courts, is expected to reignite conversations around social media responsibility, digital defamation, and the protection of personal dignity in the digital age.