The High Court has declared sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 that empowered the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4) to order the blocking of websites unconstitutional.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Lawrence Nyaundi, the court struck down Sections 6(1) and 27(1) of the law, finding that they violated constitutional protections on fundamental rights and freedoms.
Justice Nyaundi held that the provisions granting the committee powers to issue website takedown orders were unconstitutional.
High Court Declares Sections of Cybercrimes Law Allowing Website Blocking Unconstitutional
The court also invalidated the offence of cyber harassment contained in the amended law, ruling that it was vague and overly broad, failing to meet the constitutional threshold for limiting rights under Article 24 of the Constitution.
Section 27(1) had criminalized cyber harassment by making it an offence to send online communications that were likely to cause fear, adversely affect another person, or were considered grossly offensive.
Section 6(1) had granted the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4) the power to issue directives requiring websites, applications and other digital platforms to be made inaccessible.
The provision applied where the committee determined that the platforms promoted unlawful activities, terrorism, religious extremism, cultism or indecent sexual content involving minors.
Also Read: Court Suspends Sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act
The decision builds on an earlier High Court intervention that temporarily suspended the enforcement of parts of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 pending the hearing and determination of a constitutional petition.
Earlier Sections of the Act Suspended
In October 2025, Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued conservatory orders suspending the implementation of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c) and 27(2) of the amended law following a petition filed by musician and activist Reuben Kigame alongside the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).
The petitioners 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.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
