Nairobi, Kenya – July 2, 2026 – The Kenya Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ
Kenya), ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, and the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), with the support of
Amnesty International Kenya, welcomes the landmark ruling by the High Court of Kenya at Milimani,
declaring key provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025
unconstitutional.
In a judgment delivered by Honourable Justice Patricia Nyaundi, the Court struck down Section 6(1)
(j)(a) of the amended law, which had empowered the National Computer and Cybercrimes
Coordination Committee (NC4) to disable access to websites and applications suspected of hosting
content linked to terrorism, violent extremism, child sexual exploitation, and other unlawful activities.
The Court held that the provision granted sweeping censorship powers to an administrative body
without adequate safeguards, infringing on constitutional protections for freedom of expression and
media freedom.
The Court found that the provision effectively permitted the Committee to determine whether online
content was offensive and to order its removal without judicial oversight, thereby constituting
unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court further held that the State had failed to demonstrate that
the limitation of constitutional rights met the strict requirements under Article 24 of the Constitution,
which demands that any restriction of a fundamental freedom be clear, precise, reasonable, and
demonstrably justifiable in an open and democratic society.
The Court also invalidated Section 27(1)(b), which criminalised communication considered “likely” to
cause another person to commit suicide. Justice Nyaundi ruled that the provision was vague, overly
broad, and based on speculative standards that failed to define with sufficient precision what conduct
amounted to a criminal offence. She held that imposing criminal liability on the basis of
communication merely “likely” to result in suicide offended the constitutional principle of legality
because it relied on subjective and uncertain criteria.
The petition challenged the constitutionality of these provisions, arguing that they granted excessive
powers to the NC4 without judicial oversight and legitimised internet and platform shutdowns, and
that the vague language of Section 27(1)(b) criminalised speech based on subjective standards.
