High Court Halts Enforcement of Controversial Cyber Law
The High Court in Nairobi has handed President William Ruto’s administration a major legal blow after suspending key provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2025.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued conservatory orders halting the enforcement of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), and 27(2), which sought to criminalize the publication of what the law termed as false or misleading information online.
The suspension came after gospel musician and activist Reuben Kigame, alongside the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), filed a constitutional petition challenging the amendments for allegedly violating rights to free speech and access to information.
Petitioners: Law Criminalizes Opinion and Criticism
Speaking after the ruling, Mr. Kigame welcomed the court’s decision, saying the law was a thinly veiled attempt to silence dissent.
“These provisions are so vaguely worded that they effectively criminalize opinion, satire, and criticism of those in power,” he said. “If allowed to operate, this law would have silenced digital spaces and strangled free speech.”
The KHRC echoed his sentiments, arguing that the state cannot use national security concerns to justify eroding civil liberties.
“The amendments represent an attempt to roll back hard-won rights in the name of cybersecurity,” said Davis Malombe, KHRC Executive Director. “The court has reaffirmed that national security cannot be used as a pretext to erode constitutional guarantees.”
What the Suspended Law Entailed
The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2025, signed into law by President Ruto on October 15, 2025, introduced stringent penalties for online offences — including fines of up to KSh 20 million or 10 years in prison for so-called cyber-harassment.
Critics warned that the vaguely defined offences could be used to intimidate journalists, whistle-blowers, and social media users critical of government policies. Civil society groups also raised alarm that the law empowered the state to monitor private communication and direct internet shutdowns — provisions they described as ripe for abuse.
Government Defends the Law as a Security Tool
Despite the backlash, Interior Principal Secretary Raymond Omollo defended the legislation, insisting it targeted legitimate cyber threats.
“This law is about protecting Kenyans from online fraud, child exploitation, terrorism, and misinformation that causes harm. It is not a tool to police thought,” Omollo said.
However, human rights defenders counter that Kenya already has sufficient laws to combat cybercrime and that the amendments go beyond reasonable limits by criminalizing digital expression.
Judicial Oversight and Next Steps
Justice Mugambi directed all respondents — including the Attorney-General and the Speaker of the National Assembly — to respond to the petition within seven days. The case will be mentioned on November 5 for further directions.
Legal experts say the case will set a critical precedent in defining the boundaries between online regulation and free expression.
“This is a watershed moment,” said constitutional lawyer Linda Kariuki. “Kenya must find a balance between regulating harmful content and safeguarding the democratic right to free expression.”
A Turning Point for Digital Freedoms in Kenya
While the contested sections remain suspended, the rest of the cybercrime law continues to operate. Digital-rights advocates say the outcome could reshape Kenya’s approach to online governance and influence similar debates across Africa.
“This ruling gives Kenyans breathing space,” said Mr. Kigame. “But the real battle — to keep our digital freedoms alive — has only just begun.”