High Court strikes down key sections of Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrime law

NAIROBI, Kenya – The High Court has ruled that two sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act are unconstitutional, saying they go too far in limiting the rights and freedoms of Kenyans online.

The case was filed in October 2025 at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi by presidential aspirant Mwalimu Reuben Kigame and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNHRC), who challenged the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Amendment Act shortly after it was signed into law on October 15, 2025.

They argued that some parts of the amended law violated the Constitution.

Some issues could not be heard again

The government argued that similar issues had already been decided by the courts in an earlier case. The High Court agreed that it could not reopen matters that had already been settled.

However, the Court said it could still examine the new amendments that were introduced into the law. The petitioners also argued that the law was passed without involving the Senate and without giving Kenyans enough opportunity to give their views.

The Court disagreed

It ruled that the amendments did not affect county governments, so the Senate was not required to take part. It also found that Parliament gave the public a fair chance to submit their views before passing the law.

Two sections declared unconstitutional

The first section allowed a government committee to order websites or apps to be blocked if they were found to promote illegal activities, terrorism, religious extremism, cultism, or certain sexual content involving children.

The Court ruled that this power was too broad and could unfairly limit freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and media freedom. It said the government had not shown why such wide powers were necessary.

The second section made it a criminal offence to communicate with someone in a way that was likely to cause them to die by suicide.

The Court found that this wording was too vague because it would be difficult to know when someone’s words had crossed the line into a crime. The judges said criminal laws must be clear so that people know exactly what behaviour is illegal.

Why this ruling matters

The decision is a major victory for digital rights and freedom of expression in Kenya. It comes at a time when there has been growing concern over how far the government can go in regulating online speech, content moderation, and access to digital platforms.

Civil society groups, journalists, and rights advocates have repeatedly warned that vague cybercrime laws can be used to silence criticism or punish lawful expression.

The ruling means the government cannot create laws that limit constitutional rights without showing that those limits are necessary, fair, and clearly defined.

While the Court upheld the way Parliament passed the law, it made it clear that any law restricting people’s freedoms must meet the standards set by the Constitution.