- By :Rhoda Bogeta
A case has been filed at the Milimani Law Courts contesting the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, with the petitioners alleging that it contravenes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the petition, the applicants are seeking several declarations that the newly enacted law is unconstitutional, null, and void, claiming that it violates the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, access to information, and fair administrative action as enshrined under Articles 10, 24, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 47 of the Constitution.
The petitioners argue that the law, which was assented to by the President on October 15, 2025, introduces vague and overly broad provisions that criminalize online expression and undermine the Data Protection Act of 2019.
Among the disputed provisions is a clause that criminalizes the dissemination of “false, misleading, or mischievous” information. The petitioners contend that such wording is open to misuse and could be used to suppress dissenting opinions on digital platforms.
They further oppose a section mandating the verification of social media accounts, which requires users to link their profiles with government-issued identification, arguing that the move poses a serious threat to online privacy and anonymity.
The petition, filed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission and musician Reuben Kigame, also accuses Parliament of procedural impropriety. The petitioners argue that the Bill ought to have been classified as one affecting county governments under Article 110 of the Constitution, and therefore should have been referred to the Senate for consideration.
They maintain that the National Assembly’s failure to involve the Senate renders the legislative process unconstitutional.
The petitioners are also challenging amendments to Section 27 of the Principal Act, which criminalizes communication that causes another person to commit suicide. They describe the section as vague, speculative, and incapable of practical enforcement.
According to the petition, the law lacks clear legal standards, creating the risk of arbitrary application by state authorities.
The petitioners are now seeking a permanent injunction to bar the government from implementing the disputed provisions pending the court’s determination of the matter.
