Digital violence: Why victims cannot find refuge in the law

There's failure to hold perpetrators of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and femicide in Kenya to account.[iStock]

Digital violence, commonly referred to as technology-facilitated violence, is a pervasive form of gender-based violence that undermines the human rights of people. is committed and escalated through the use of digital communication technologies such as mobile phones and social media platforms, among many others.

A 2024 Kenyan survey report showed that over 50 per cent of women experienced some form of online gender-based violence (OGBV). Prevalent forms reported include: Misogynistic Comments, Doxing, Cyberbullying and Harassment, Cyberstalking, Impersonation and identity theft, Sextortion and deep fake pornography. These forms of OGBV have a psychological and emotional impact on individuals.

According to the same report, 39 per cent of girls who experienced harassment felt physically unsafe, and 20 per cent of women stopped expressing their opinions online or withdrew from platforms altogether.

Other consequences experienced include anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, loss of self-esteem, self-censorship and silencing.

This year’s theme for the 16 Days of Activism against GBV campaign, “Unite to end digital violence against all women and girls,” calls for a well-coordinated, multi-sectoral response. However, critical gaps challenge this effort:

A primary challenge is inadequate access to psychosocial support services. Specialised, affordable, and accessible trauma counselling for OGBV is scarce, exacerbated by a shortage of counsellors trained to handle the unique trauma of technology-facilitated violence.

These services are primarily established in urban centres, leaving many survivors to cope alone, which deepens their trauma and isolation.

However, despite the existence of legislation such as the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (CMC) Act of 2018, amended in 2025, the Act neglects to include vital concepts such as gender-based violence, online gender-based violence, violence against women, and digital violence.

It also does not criminalise certain types of OGBV in the Act. Thus, the lack of a gender perspective within the Act directly jeopardises the efforts to eradicate OGBV.

Additionally, the process of seeking justice in courts is intimidating to survivors who encounter victim-blaming, cost components, and the absence of specialised knowledge in the justice system.

A survivor is referred from the police station to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and, finally, to the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC).

This procedure directly indicates the disparity between the written policy and the realities on the ground in Kenyan saying, “vitu kwa ground ni different.”

At the police stations, survivors encounter victim-blaming if the officers lack specialised know-how in the matter and respond to the survivor with statements like: “Why were you on social media?” Additionally, the rate of cyber threats continues to outpace the pace of policy-making. Such emerging threats now include the use of AI in abusive activities.

Finally, the lack of widespread public awareness of cyberspace rights, safety, and privacy means many people do not know how to protect their identities online.

Such shortcomings make the echo of the claim resonate in the words: “In Kenya, we are not unequal. We are differently equal.”

To address these shortcomings, the Kenyan government must enact a special law that identifies and defines certain OGBV crimes. Establish specialized cybercrime units within the police force, specifically trained to handle OGBV cases, mirroring the existing Gender-Based Violence reporting desks. 

There is also need to offer constant training for the Court Users Committee, the police, and mental health professionals on OGBV topics, digital forensic capabilities, and survivor-sensitive care.

Government-sponsored national mental health fund for supporting organisations offering free psychosocial support and legal assistance should also be established.

To end digital violence, we first need to grasp its paradoxical composition. It is a war to make the invisible wounds seen, to lend the face of the unseen perpetrator, to render the paper-like nature of the law into flesh-like justice for every woman on the internet.