High Court Strikes Down Cybercrime Law Clauses in Major Victory for Media Freedom and Free Expression
By Anchor Reporter
The High Court has delivered a landmark judgment reaffirming constitutional protections for media freedom, freedom of expression and digital rights after declaring key provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional.
In a judgment delivered today, Justice Patricia Nyaundi Mande ruled that Parliament exceeded constitutional limits by granting sweeping powers to a government committee to block websites and criminalising speech based on vague and subjective standards.
The consolidated petitions were filed by the Law Society of Kenya together with media rights organisations, civil society groups, politicians and other petitioners who challenged the amendments as a direct assault on constitutional freedoms.
At the heart of the case was a controversial amendment allowing the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to order websites and digital applications rendered inaccessible if they were deemed to promote “unlawful activities”, “religious extremism”, “cultism” or other prohibited content. Justice Mande found that such powers amounted to censorship exercised without judicial oversight.”The amendment confers upon an administrative body a sweeping authority to impose prior restraint, the most severe form of censorship,” the judge held, warning that the law would inevitably create “a chilling effect on legitimate expression” by forcing individuals, journalists and digital platforms to censor themselves out of fear of punishment.
The court declared Section 6(1)(ja) unconstitutional for violating Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Constitution, which protect freedom of conscience, expression and media freedom.
It found that the State had failed to justify the limitations as required under Article 24 of the Constitution.
In another significant finding, the court struck down amendments to Section 27(1)(b), which made it a criminal offence to communicate in a manner “likely to cause” another person to commit suicide.
Justice Mande ruled that the wording was speculative, vague and incapable of objective application, making it inconsistent with constitutional standards requiring criminal offences to be clear and predictable.
“The provision introduces a speculative, indeterminate and wholly subjective basis for criminal liability,” the judge ruled, adding that such uncertainty cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The petitions had argued that the amendments would encourage arbitrary arrests and prosecutions while intimidating journalists, bloggers, activists and ordinary Kenyans into self-censorship. The judge warned that speech critical of government could easily be criminalised because of subjective interpretations of emotional harm.
Although the court rejected arguments that Parliament failed to conduct public participation or improperly excluded the Senate from the legislative process, it nevertheless found that the impugned provisions themselves violated the Constitution.
For journalists and media organisations, the judgment represents one of the strongest judicial affirmations in recent years that freedom of expression cannot be curtailed through broad administrative powers or vaguely drafted criminal offences.
The court warned that allowing executive agencies to shut down websites without judicial supervision would undermine Kenya’s democratic order and erode the “vibrant and uninhibited marketplace of ideas” protected by the Constitution.
Media rights advocates have long argued that cybercrime laws should target genuine criminal conduct such as hacking, fraud and online exploitation without becoming instruments for suppressing legitimate journalism, whistleblowing or political criticism.
By invalidating the two controversial provisions while leaving the rest of the legislation intact, the High Court drew a clear constitutional line: efforts to combat cybercrime must never come at the expense of fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
The consolidated petitions therefore partially succeeded, with the court declaring Sections 6(1)(ja) and 27(1)(b) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Stay Anchored
Patricia Nyaundi Mande
