The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has stated that its Africa Eye investigation, Madams: Exposing Kenya’s Child Sex Trade, profiled adult survivors sharing accounts of abuse they experienced as children, and that no participants were paid or coached.

The clarification comes in response to Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen’s criticism of the documentary, in which he dismissed the exposé on a Maai Mahiu child sex trafficking network as a “hoax,” alleging the girls featured were adults who had been paid to appear.

In a statement, the BBC described the documentary as a vital work of public interest journalism exposing the exploitation of children in Kenya’s sex trade. Released on August 4, 2025, the investigative film featured accounts from survivors of sexual abuse in Maai Mahiu.

The British state broadcaster stressed that all evidence collected during the investigation was shared with Kenyan police in March 2025, identifying both the alleged perpetrators and victims requiring urgent support.

“We note with concern that following the broadcast of the film, survivors of childhood sexual abuse who contributed to the film were interviewed at length by investigators from the Kenya Directorate of Criminal Investigations without the presence of legal representation. There has also been a debate on the investigation in the Kenyan parliament,” the BBC stated.

“For clarity, none of the contributors featured in this film were paid, offered payment or ‘coached’ in any way. As clearly stated in the film, the survivors of abuse who were interviewed were all over 18 and recounted experiences of abuse that occurred when they were underage. We are thankful to the survivors for their brave contributions.”

Appearing before Parliament on Wednesday, August 13, Murkomen said post-broadcast investigations by his ministry found that four women claimed the British media outlet had approached them to recruit vulnerable girls aged 17 to 21 for what turned out to be a fictitious foreign sponsorship programme.

Murkomen further cast doubt on the authenticity of the underage girls shown in the film, stating that investigators discovered links between the documentary’s witnesses, suggesting the possibility of fabricated accounts.

He added that some of the sex workers interviewed had even enlisted their relatives in the scheme, allegedly after learning about the potential monetary rewards.

“On the part of the BBC, as far as media ethics is concerned, the first question is, why would anyone promise a financial reward in case information is going to be shared?” he asked.

He suggested that the journalists either offer payments to secure a compelling story and profit from the documentary’s success, or use money as a lure to draw in children experiencing similar exploitation.

“Was the incentive reward intended to get a good story that can be aired by the BBC and therefore improve the well-being of the reporter, or was it part of the tricks that were being used by the BBC to see if they could find actual young children?” he posed.

“The conclusions that were made bring into question an international media house like the BBC, on how they verify their sources.”

Murkomen revealed that the two women depicted in the documentary as child traffickers were allegedly offered large sums of money and have since moved to undisclosed locations.

He further dismissed the exposé as fabricated, claiming the witnesses presented as minors were, in fact, adults.