An exerpt of the judgment reads,
“This Court thus finds that, the provisions of the section 77 of the penal code are over broad and vague, and that they limit the right to freedom of expression and there is lack of clarity as to the purpose and intent and. the limitation in section 77 is not “provided by law”.
The section is vague and over-broad firstly by not explicitly limiting the freedom of expression but adding the limitation on to other acts or conduct , there exists confusing definition of “subversion” especially about the meaning of “prejudicial to public order, security of Kenya and administration of justice”, “in defiance of or disobedience to the law and lawful authority; unlawful society” or “hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against any public officer or any class of public officer”.
None of the terms used in the offence are defined or capable of precise or objective legal definition or understanding.”