Court Suspends Sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act

The High Court has suspended the enforcement of certain Sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi on Wednesday, October 22, issued the order pending the determination of a petition filed by politician Reuben Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

He also ordered the respondents — among them the Kenya Union of Journalists, the Media Council of Kenya, the Attorney General, and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) — to respond within seven days.

Sections 27(1)(b), (c), and (2) Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act Suspended

The petitioners had challenged the constitutionality of Sections 27(1)(b), (c), and (2) of the amended law, warning that the state could use these provisions to infringe on freedom of expression and silence dissent or legitimate online criticism.

“I have read the Notice of Motion application dated 21/10/2025, the certificate of urgency of even date, together with the affidavit in support sworn by Dr. Reuben Kigame Lichete and direct that:

1. The application and submissions to the application be physically served within 3 days, and a return of service be filed.
2. Pending the hearing and determination of this application a conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the enforcement, implementation and operation of Section 27(1)(b), (c) and (2) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025.
3. Responses and submissions to the application be filed and served within 7 days from the date of service.
4. If need be, the applicant/petitioner may file and serve a rejoinder within 7 days from the date of receipt of responses.
5. Further directions on 05/11/2025.”

Also Read: Inside Law That Will See Kenyans Face Ksh 20 Million Fine or 10 Years Jail Over Online Posts

Petition by Kigame

Kigame and the KHRC had moved to court, arguing that the law, assented to by President William Ruto on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, raises constitutional concerns related to privacy, freedom of expression, and media independence in the country.

They contended that the amendments introduce vague, intrusive, and allegedly unconstitutional provisions that erode digital rights and weaken privacy protections for Kenyans.

“The provision against ‘false, misleading, or mischievous’ information is impermissibly vague and creates a severe chilling effect. This violates Article 33 and is not a reasonable and justifiable limitation under Article 24,” they cited, adding that it lacked clarity.

Section 27 expanded the definition of cyber harassment to include online communications that are “detrimental,” “indecent,” or “grossly offensive” and “affect a person,” even indirectly.

The clause introduces penalties for communication said to make someone fear for their safety or the safety of their property; cause emotional or reputational harm; or be indecent or grossly offensive in nature.

Also Read: PS Omollo Defends New Cybercrimes Law, Details Actions That will Be Criminalized

Under the amended law, offenders face a fine not exceeding Ksh20 million or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both — a significant escalation from the original penalties in the 2018 Act.

The provision empowered courts to issue restraining orders and compelled service providers to disclose subscriber information to help identify offenders.

Kigame and KHRC termed this clause “unconstitutionally vague,” noting that it fails to define what constitutes such communication or establish a clear legal threshold for causation, leaving it open to arbitrary and abusive enforcement that will severely chill freedom of expression.

“The Amendment creates a parallel and conflicting framework that undermines the Data Protection Act, 2019, thereby creating legal chaos and uncertainty,” he said.

Another concern expressed by the petitioners is the mandatory verification of social media accounts, which requires users to link their profiles to government-issued identification documents. 

The petitioners argued that this amounts to state surveillance and an invasion of privacy, violating Article 31 of the Constitution and anonymous speech, a facet of freedom of expression (Article 33).

Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.