Activist Francis Awino Challenges Kenya’s Amended Cybercrime Law in Landmark High Court Petition

Last Updated on October 23, 2025 by courtnews reporter

Kenyan human rights activist Francis Awino has filed a constitutional petition in the High Court seeking to suspend the recently amended Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, arguing that the law represents a major threat to freedom of expression, media independence, and digital rights.

In his petition, Awino warns that the amendments—particularly those expanding the scope of cyber harassment offenses—have created a legal environment ripe for abuse by the state. He claims the new provisions could be used to criminalize legitimate criticism, silence dissent, and intimidate journalists under the guise of protecting cybersecurity.

“This law is dangerously vague and open to manipulation,” Awino said in his petition. “It effectively gives government agencies unchecked power to decide what citizens can or cannot say online.”

Powerful Respondents Named in the Petition

Awino, who personally filed the case in Nairobi, has listed several top government institutions as respondents, including the Attorney General, the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NCCCC), the Inspector-General of Police, and Parliament.

Legal observers have described the case as a “David versus Goliath” battle, pitting a single citizen activist against the state’s most powerful legal and security organs in what could become a landmark test case for digital rights and freedom of expression in Kenya.

Disputed Section 27: The Heart of the Controversy

At the center of the legal battle is Section 27 of the amended Act, which broadens the definition of “cyber harassment.”
Under the new wording, any online post or message can be classified as harassment if it allegedly causes “serious emotional distress” or “mental harm,” even if the writer did not intend to harm anyone.

Awino argues that this clause is unconstitutionally vague and grants law enforcement excessive discretionary power, leaving online users, journalists, and activists exposed to arbitrary arrests and prosecution.

He likens it to a “legal minefield” that endangers free thought and political expression. “This law turns free speech into a crime,” he said, “and reintroduces criminal defamation through the back door.”

Claims of State Overreach and Censorship

Even more controversial is a new clause that allows the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to order the removal of online content or block entire websites and social media accounts—without first obtaining a court order.

Awino calls this provision an unconstitutional overreach, describing it as “state censorship disguised as cybersecurity.”

According to his filing, the NCCCC should not be allowed to act as both investigator and judge over online content, especially without judicial oversight.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

The petition invokes key constitutional protections—specifically Articles 33, 34, 47, and 50—which guarantee:

• Freedom of expression

• Media freedom

• Fair administrative action

• The right to a fair hearing

Awino contends that the amended law violates these provisions by creating broad and subjective offenses that can be misused to punish dissent. He further argues that Parliament breached the principle of legality, passing a law that is too ambiguous for citizens to reasonably interpret or comply with.

He also notes that the amendment process lacked proper public participation, a constitutional requirement for all major legislative changes.

“The law was rushed and passed without meaningful consultation,” Awino asserts. “It does not reflect the voices of the people it claims to protect.”

Potential Penalties and Legal Impact

Under the disputed amendments, individuals found guilty of cyber harassment could face fines of up to KSh 20 million or 10 years in prison—punishments Awino says are grossly disproportionate to the alleged offenses.

He argues that such penalties are intended to instill fear and deter online accountability, especially targeting journalists, whistleblowers, and citizens critical of the government.

Call for Judicial Intervention

Awino has requested conservatory orders to suspend Section 27 of the Act pending a full hearing. He also seeks a court order barring the NCCCC from issuing takedown or blocking directives without judicial authorization.

If the court grants the interim relief, the government’s expanded cyber law powers will be temporarily halted—setting the stage for what could be a historic constitutional showdown over digital freedom versus state control in Kenya.

Broader Implications for Digital Rights

Legal experts say the petition could reshape the future of online expression in Kenya, especially as internet platforms continue to play a growing role in activism, journalism, and political accountability.

“This case will test whether Kenya’s judiciary can protect constitutional rights in the digital age,” said one Nairobi-based legal analyst. “The outcome could define how far the government can go in policing speech online.”

Next Steps

The High Court is expected to announce a date for the urgent hearing in the coming days.
Until then, civil society organizations, journalists, and digital rights defenders are closely monitoring the case, viewing it as a critical moment for the protection of freedom of expression and internet freedoms in Kenya.