Mounting Opposition to New Digital Regulations

NAIROBI – A legal storm is gathering around President William Ruto’s administration following his assent to the contentious Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024. Signed into law on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, the legislation has ignited a fierce debate, pitting the government’s stated goal of curbing digital-age threats against warnings from human rights bodies that the law could severely undermine freedom of expression in Kenya.

The High Court of Kenya has already intervened, suspending key controversial sections of the Act on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, following petitions by the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), and activist Reuben Kigame. The court's decision temporarily halts provisions that critics argue are vaguely worded and grant excessive powers to the state, setting the stage for a significant constitutional battle over the boundaries of digital rights and state security.

Key Provisions and Criticisms

The amended law significantly expands the state's powers to police the internet. It grants the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4), a body largely composed of security officials, the authority to order internet service providers to block websites or take down online content deemed to promote terrorism, child pornography, or "extreme religious and cultic practices"—potentially without a court order.

Human rights organizations, including the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) and international bodies like Human Rights Watch and Article 19, have condemned the law as a direct threat to constitutional freedoms. On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, KNCHR chairperson Claris Ogangah described the law as "legally defective" and an "affront to freedom of expression and the right to privacy," arguing its overbroad provisions could criminalise legitimate dissent. Similarly, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on Thursday, November 13, 2025, warning the Act could be abused to "silence government critics" and manipulate political processes.

A particularly contentious clause, now suspended by the High Court, is the expanded definition of cyber harassment. It penalizes publishing information that is "likely to cause" a person to commit suicide, a provision critics say is dangerously vague and ripe for subjective, arbitrary enforcement. The penalties are severe, with potential fines of up to KSh 20 million and imprisonment for up to 10 years for certain offenses.

Government's Defence: A Necessary Tool

President Ruto has vigorously defended the legislation. Speaking in Laikipia County on Thursday, October 23, 2025, he asserted the law is essential to protect Kenyans, especially the youth, from cyberbullying, online fraud, and extremist propaganda. “Our young people are being harassed; they are being terrorised on social media. We must stop that,” the President stated, dismissing criticism as misinformation. Government officials, including Interior Principal Secretary Dr. Raymond Omollo, have echoed this sentiment, arguing the amendments are a necessary modernization of the original 2018 Act to combat sophisticated digital threats like SIM-swap fraud and phishing, which have led to significant financial losses for Kenyans.

The administration insists the law targets criminals, not critics, and that freedom of expression remains protected. Information Cabinet Secretary William Kabogo stated that the law provides "no new surveillance powers" and that any access to personal data still requires a court order. The government highlights the law's role in securing Kenya's growing digital economy and protecting critical national infrastructure.

Implications for Kenya's Digital Space

The standoff over the Cybercrimes Act places Kenya at a critical juncture, balancing national security against democratic freedoms in an increasingly digital society. Digital rights advocates fear the law could have a chilling effect on online discourse, leading to self-censorship among journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who use social media to demand accountability. The timing of the President's assent, which occurred on the same day the death of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga was announced, also drew criticism for a perceived lack of transparency and public awareness.

As the legal challenges proceed, the judiciary's interpretation of the Act will be pivotal in defining the future of Kenya's online public square. The outcome will determine whether the nation can fortify its cybersecurity framework without sacrificing the vibrant, open debate that has become a hallmark of its digital landscape. FURTHER INVESTIGATION REQUIRED on the final disposition of the court cases.