ADVERT 
Nairobi, Kenya — In a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for digital rights and freedom of expression, the High Court has struck down key provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 that permitted the blocking of websites without judicial oversight.
Justice Patricia Mande declared Section 6(1)(j)(a) unconstitutional, finding that it granted excessive and unchecked powers to the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee. The provision had allowed the committee to direct internet service providers to disable access to websites and online applications suspected of hosting content linked to terrorism, violent extremism, and child exploitation—without first seeking court approval.
In her ruling, Justice Mande held that the law violated fundamental constitutional freedoms, including freedom of expression, media freedom, and freedom of religion. She emphasized that allowing an administrative body to unilaterally determine and suppress online content amounted to prior restraint, one of the most severe forms of censorship in democratic societies.
“The provision lacks adequate procedural safeguards and clear evidentiary thresholds,” the judge noted, warning that such unchecked authority could lead to arbitrary enforcement and abuse.
The court firmly rejected the State’s argument that judicial oversight could be implied within the law. Justice Mande pointed out that Parliament had explicitly provided for court involvement in other enforcement mechanisms within the same legislation—demonstrating that the contested section was deliberately designed to operate independently of the judiciary.
Crucially, the court found that the State failed to justify the limitation of constitutional rights under Article 24, which requires any restriction to be reasonable, clear, and justifiable in an open and democratic society.
The ruling also cautioned against the broader implications of the law, noting that it could create a chilling effect on online speech. Individuals and digital platforms, the court observed, might resort to self-censorship out of fear of sanctions.
In a related decision, Justice Mande also invalidated Section 27(1)(b) of the amended Act, which criminalised communication deemed “likely” to cause another person to commit suicide. The court found the provision vague, overly broad, and based on speculative standards that fail to meet the constitutional principle of legality.
“Criminal liability cannot be imposed on subjective and uncertain criteria,” the judge ruled, underscoring the dangers of legislating offences without clear definitions.
However, the court upheld the legislative process behind the amendments. Justice Mande ruled that the National Assembly had conducted sufficient public participation and that Senate involvement was not required, as the law did not concern county governments.
The consolidated petitions therefore partially succeeded, with the High Court nullifying the controversial provisions on website blocking and suicide-related communication, while allowing the rest of the cybercrimes amendments to stand.
The decision marks a significant victory for digital rights advocates and sets a critical precedent on the limits of state power in regulating online content in Kenya.
