Court upholds suspension of sections of cybercrime law

According to the petitioners, the contested sections introduce broad, imprecise, and unconstitutional criminal liabilities. [iStockphoto]

The government suffered a blow on Friday after the High Court, for the second time, declined its attempt to lift the orders suspending the implementation of certain sections of the controversial cybercrime law.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi rejected the request to set aside the orders, ruling that they would remain in force until six petitions, filed by, others, gospel artiste Reuben Kigame, MP Babu Owino, Kirinyaga Woman Rep Jane Njeri and the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) are heard and determined.

“I decline the request to lift the orders. The orders herein will remain in force pending the determination of the case,” Justice Mugambi stated.

He further scheduled the hearing of the six consolidated petitions for February 13, 2025, and gave all parties a final opportunity to file affidavits and submissions within 14 days.

In the case, the petitioners led by Kigame, the Kenya Human Rights Commission and LSK’s petition allege that President William Ruto secretly assented to the law on October 15, 2025, just hours after the nation mourned the sudden death of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

“The timing was suspicious and deliberate,” argues LSK CEO Florence Muturi

 “While the country was grieving, the President quietly signed into law provisions that criminalize online speech and open the door to censorship.”

The case pits the petitioners against the Attorney-General, the Cabinet Secretary for Information, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK), and the Inspector-General of Police.

According to the petitioners, the contested sections introduce broad, imprecise, and unconstitutional criminal liabilities.

At the heart of the case is Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic governance.

“People are already self-censoring,” Muturi said.

One provision criminalises any publication of false or misleading information “likely to cause another person to commit suicide.”

 Kigame argues that the provision is vague and speculative, violating the constitutional principle of legality.

“The phrase ‘likely to cause them to commit suicide’ lacks clear legal parameters and is impossible to measure objectively,” he says . 

 “This transforms a deeply complex psychological question into a criminal offence and exposes ordinary citizens to arbitrary prosecution.”

The LSK also challenges Section 27(1)(c), which penalizes digital communication deemed “grossly offensive” and that “affects the person.” 

 Under Section 27(2), offenders face fines of up to Sh20 million or up to ten years in jail, or both.

“Such draconian penalties are disproportionate,” the lobby group states.

 “They are imposed on vague offences that could easily capture satire, criticism, or online debate,the very essence of democracy.”

The petitioners warns that the law’s ambiguity could be misused by law enforcement to silence critics, intimidate journalists, and restrict online expression.

 At the heart of the case is Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic governance.

“People are already self-censoring,” LSK chief executive Muturi said. 

“The fear of arrest or prosecution under such an ambiguous law undermines public participation, media freedom, and political discourse.”