In a landmark ruling for digital rights and freedom of expression, the High Court of Kenya has declared two key provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional, saying they gave the government excessive powers to censor online content and criminalise speech using vague legal standards.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Patricia Nyaundi struck down Section 6(1)(j)(a), a provision that allowed the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4) to order internet service providers to disable access to websites and applications suspected of hosting content linked to terrorism, violent extremism, child sexual exploitation or other unlawful activities.
The court found that the law effectively handed an administrative body sweeping censorship powers without judicial oversight, violating constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression and media freedom.
Justice Nyaundi held that decisions restricting access to online content must be subject to judicial scrutiny rather than executive discretion. According to the ruling, the government also failed to demonstrate that the limitation of constitutional rights met the strict standards required under Article 24 of Kenya’s Constitution, which permits restrictions on rights only when they are clear, reasonable, and justifiable in a democratic society.
The court also invalidated Section 27(1)(b) of the amended law, which criminalised communication deemed “likely” to cause another person to commit suicide.
Justice Nyaundi ruled that the provision was overly broad and relied on speculative standards that failed to clearly define what conduct constituted a criminal offence. The judgment found that imposing criminal liability based merely on communication considered “likely” to produce a particular outcome violated the constitutional principle of legality.
The constitutional petition had been filed by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya), ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, and the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), with support from Amnesty International Kenya.
The petitioners argued that the amendments granted the NC4 unchecked authority to order internet and platform shutdowns without judicial approval while criminalising speech using vague language that could be interpreted subjectively.
Reacting to the decision, ICJ Kenya Chairperson Christine Alai described the judgment as “a resounding affirmation of freedom to seek, receive and impart information online.”
“The Court has rightly held that the power to restrict access to online content must be subject to judicial oversight and cannot be left to an administrative body,” she said.
Patrick Mutahi, Acting Regional Director of ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, called the ruling “a victory for the digital rights of all Kenyans.”
“The Court has sent a clear message that vague and overly broad provisions that criminalise speech based on speculative standards have no place in our legal framework,” he said.
Meanwhile, BAKE Chairperson Kennedy Kachwanya said the judgment reinforces the role of the judiciary in protecting constitutional freedoms.
“This judgment restores our confidence in the judiciary and affirms that the internet is a space for free expression, not for censorship. We will continue to fight for a digital environment that is open, inclusive, and respectful of fundamental rights,” he said.
The ruling is expected to have significant implications for digital governance in Kenya, particularly in defining the limits of state power over online platforms and reinforcing judicial oversight whenever constitutional rights such as freedom of expression are restricted.
For journalists, bloggers, digital creators, and ordinary internet users, the judgment marks one of the most consequential court decisions on online freedoms since Kenya enacted its cybercrimes legislation, reaffirming that efforts to combat online crime must remain consistent with constitutional protections and the rule of law.
