William Ruto Assenting laws
By David Njoroge
The High Court in Nairobi has suspended the implementation of key sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, after gospel musician and activist Reuben Kigame challenged the constitutionality of the new provisions.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued conservatory orders stopping the enforcement of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), and 27(2)** of the amended law until the petition is heard and determined. The judge also directed all parties, including the State, to file and exchange their responses within seven days, ahead of a mention scheduled for November 5.
The petition, filed jointly by Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), argues that the contested provisions — which criminalise the publication of “false or misleading information” online — are unconstitutional and a threat to freedom of expression.
According to the petitioners, the law could be used to intimidate journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens critical of the government. “No democratic nation can claim to protect free speech while threatening citizens with jail for expressing opinions online,” said Kigame, who has long championed media freedom and inclusive governance.
The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, was signed into law by President William Ruto on October 15 at State House, Nairobi. The amendments expanded the government’s powers to regulate online communication and introduced new penalties for spreading false information, impersonation, and the publication of content deemed harmful to national security.
However, the law has triggered widespread backlash from civil society, legal scholars, and media organisations who warn that the amendments risk rolling back Kenya’s hard-won digital freedoms. Critics argue that the definition of “false or misleading information” is vague and overly broad, granting authorities wide discretion to determine what constitutes a crime.
Kiambu Senator Karungo Thang’wa questioned whether the legislation was passed in accordance with the Constitution, alleging that the National Assembly bypassed Senate input contrary to Article 110, which requires both Houses to deliberate on laws affecting counties.
Legal experts have also raised concerns that the amendments may contravene Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Some scholars, including constitutional law expert Dr Duncan Ojwang, argue that the law grants unchecked powers to security agencies, including the authority to shut down websites or social media platforms accused of promoting “unlawful activities.”
The KHRC, in its supporting affidavit, noted that the criminalisation of false information would likely discourage investigative journalism and silence whistle-blowers, undermining accountability and transparency in governance.
Kenya first enacted the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act in 2018, aiming to curb online fraud, cyberbullying, and data breaches. But sections dealing with false information and defamation have been repeatedly challenged in court by rights groups who view them as tools for censorship.
The new 2025 amendments sought to strengthen those provisions, introducing heavier penalties and expanding their scope — a move that digital rights advocates say marks a dangerous step backward.
Justice Mugambi’s conservatory orders will remain in place until the High Court delivers its final judgment on whether the contested sections comply with the Constitution.
If the court ultimately strikes down the provisions, it could set a major precedent for digital rights and online free expression in Kenya, at a time when governments across the region are tightening controls over cyberspace
