Gospel musician and activist Reuben Kigame
By Kimberly Kalusi
The High Court in Nairobi has handed a major legal setback to President William Ruto’s administration after suspending key sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2025, pending the full hearing of a constitutional challenge.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued conservatory orders on Wednesday halting the enforcement of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), and 27(2) of the amended law, which sought to criminalise the publication of “false or misleading” information online.
The case was filed under a certificate of urgency by gospel musician and activist Reuben Kigame alongside the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), who argued that the amendments infringe on freedoms of expression, media, and access to information guaranteed under the Constitution.
“These provisions are so vaguely worded that they effectively criminalise opinion, satire, and criticism of those in power,” said Mr Kigame after the ruling. “If allowed to operate, this law would have silenced digital spaces and strangled free speech.”
The KHRC welcomed the court’s intervention, saying it was a necessary step in protecting civic freedoms. “The amendments represent an attempt to roll back hard-won rights in the name of cybersecurity. The court has reaffirmed that national security cannot be used as a pretext to erode constitutional guarantees,” said KHRC’s Executive Director, Davis Malombe.
The amended law, signed by President Ruto on October 15, 2025, introduced harsher penalties for online offences, including fines of up to KSh 20 million or ten years in prison for what it termed “cyber-harassment.” Critics said the law’s definitions were overly broad and could be used to target whistle-blowers, journalists, and social media users.
Civil society groups had warned that the Act gives the state sweeping powers to monitor digital communication, direct internet service providers, and shut down online platforms — provisions they described as “ripe for abuse.”
However, Interior Principal Secretary Raymond Omollo defended the legislation, saying it was intended to curb real cyber threats, not suppress dissent. “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,” he said.
Justice Mugambi ordered all respondents — including the Attorney-General and the Speaker of the National Assembly — to respond to the petition within seven days, with the matter set for hearing on November 5.
Legal analysts say the suspension underscores growing judicial vigilance over digital governance. “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.”
For now, while the contested sections remain suspended, the rest of the cybercrime law continues to operate. Digital-rights advocates say the outcome of the case could reshape Kenya’s approach to online speech and set a precedent across the region.
“This ruling gives Kenyans breathing space,” said Mr Kigame. “But the real battle — to keep our digital freedoms alive — has only just begun.”
