The High Court has struck down provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, that allowed a state committee to order internet service providers to block access to websites and online applications without prior court approval.
Justice Patricia Mande ruled that Section 6(1)(j)(a) of the amended law was unconstitutional, finding that it violated constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression, media freedom, and freedom of religion. The judge further held that the provision granted excessive powers to the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee.
The contested provisions had empowered the committee to direct internet service providers to disable access to websites and applications suspected of hosting content related to child sexual exploitation, terrorism, and other obscene or indecent material.
However, Justice Mande found that the framework effectively allowed an administrative body to regulate online content without judicial oversight.
“The amendment confers upon an administrative body a sweeping authority to impose prior restraint, the most severe form of censorship, in the absence of procedural safeguards and evidential thresholds,” she stated.
The court rejected the State’s argument that judicial oversight could be implied within the law. It held that Parliament had established a separate enforcement mechanism involving the courts in other aspects of the legislation, indicating that the disputed provision was intended to operate independently of judicial approval.
In the same judgment, the court also nullified Section 27(1)(b) of the amended Act, which criminalized communication that could lead another person to commit suicide.
- Kabogo defends cybercrime law, blames online uproar on misinformation
- Govt defends cybercrime law as rights groups cry foul
- Ruto insists cybercrime law carries no sinister motives
Justice Mande found that the provision was vague, overly broad, and based on speculative language that failed to clearly define what conduct would amount to a criminal offence.
She held that imposing criminal liability based on communication “likely to cause” suicide violated the constitutional principle of legality, as it relied on subjective and indeterminate standards.
“In the circumstances, the only proper conclusion is that Section 27(1)(b) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 is unconstitutional, invalid, and of no legal effect,” she ruled.
The court also dismissed arguments that the Senate ought to have participated in the enactment of the amendments. It held that the Senate’s involvement was not required, as the legislation did not concern county governments.
Overall, the court ruled that the consolidated constitutional petitions succeeded in part, declaring Section 6(1)(j)(a), relating to website blocking, and Section 27(1)(b), on communication likely to cause suicide, unconstitutional and of no legal effect, while upholding the remainder of the amendments to the Act.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
