The High Court has delivered a landmark judgment in the Kigame–KNHRC petition, upholding the process used to pass the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, while declaring two key provisions of the law unconstitutional.
The case was filed in October 2025 at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi by Mwalimu Reuben Kigame and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNHRC) shortly after the amendment was signed into law on October 15, 2025. The petition challenged both the process used to pass the law and several of its new provisions.
The petitioners argued that the law was passed without involving the Senate and without giving Kenyans enough opportunity to give their views bhe 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 opportunity to submit their views before the law was debated and passed.
The government also argued that some of the issues raised had already been determined by the courts in an earlier case.
The High Court agreed that it could not reopen matters that had already been settled. However, it allowed the petition to proceed on the constitutionality of the new amendments introduced by the Act.
Which sections of Cybercrime Kaa were 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.
In the second section, 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.
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.
While the Court upheld the way Parliament passed the law, it made it clear that any law restricting people’s freedoms must be necessary, fair, clearly defined, and consistent with the Constitution.
