What court ruling on fake news' case means for free speech

Shot of an unrecognizable woman using a mobile phone indoors

The Court of Appeal's decision in Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) Attorney General and others is the clearest signal that Kenya should punish real, provable harm online, not contested versions of the truth. By invalidating Sections 22 and 23, the 'false information' offences, while upholding the Act's core cybercrime and investigative framework subject to tight, courtsupervised safeguards, the ruling turns a page on years in which police and prosecutors leaned on criminal law to referee truth claims, a role the Constitution never intended.

BAKE first challenged the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (CMCA) in 2018. In 2020, the High Court dismissed the petition, but BAKE appealed. After a wide reevaluation, the Court of Appeal has found Sections 22 and 23 to be overbroad and likely to capture protected speech, including journalistic work, opinion, satire, and ordinary forwarding.