President William Ruto signs a Bill into law at State House, Nairobi.[PCS]
President William Ruto’s administration has suffered a major legal setback after the High Court in Nairobi suspended the implementation of key provisions of the controversial Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued conservatory orders halting the enforcement, implementation, and operation of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), and 27(2) of the amended law, pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by renowned activist and musician Reuben Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).
The court order came just a day after the petitioners, Kigame and KHRC, filed their case under a certificate of urgency at the Milimani Law Courts, where they argued that the amended provisions posed a direct threat to constitutionally protected freedoms, including freedom of expression, media rights, and digital communication.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
“Pending the hearing and determination of this application, a conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the enforcement, implementation, and operation of Section 27(1)(b), (c), and (2) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025,” ruled Justice Mugambi.
According to the petitioners, the contested sections of the law are overbroad and vague, creating an avenue for the criminalisation of dissent, whistleblowing, satire, and online criticism of public officials and government policies.
They warned that, if allowed to operate, the provisions would have a chilling effect on public interest journalism and digital activism.
The petitioners further argued that the amendments could be weaponised by state agencies to intimidate journalists, bloggers, political activists, and citizens who voice dissent on digital platforms.
Section 27 of the original Act has previously been criticised by civil society for criminalising the publication of “false,” “misleading,” or “disturbing” content online, terms that have been widely viewed as subjective and prone to abuse.
According to the petitioners, the government and MPs hurriedly and procedurally improperly passed the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and procured its assent by President Ruto on October 25 2025, in blatant violation of the prescribed constitutional process.
They also assert that the law was fast-tracked through Parliament without being sent to the Senate, in contravention of Article 110 of the Constitution.
He argues that this makes the entire process “fatally flawed” and unconstitutional.
“The Bill, being a bill concerning county governments, was never referred to the Senate for consideration as mandatorily required under Article 110 of the Constitution, rendering the resultant Act unconstitutional, null and void,” Kigame states in his affidavit.
Specifically, they point to criminalisation of the publication of “false, misleading, or fictitious data,” a provision they say is overly broad and unclear.
“The lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary enforcement, severely curbing free speech,” says Kigame, the first petitioner.
In their application, filed under Articles 22, 23, 159, and other relevant provisions of the Constitution, the petitioners urge the High Court to issue an order suspending the operationalisation of the law until the constitutional issues raised can be fully addressed.
“If the law is allowed to take effect, it will irreparably harm our rights and freedoms. The public interest in protecting digital freedoms outweighs any potential harm to the respondents,” the petitioners argued.
Justice Mugambi ordered the petitioners to serve the application and supporting documents to all respondents within three days.
Respondents who include the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and other interested parties, including the Kenya Union of Journalists and the Law Society of Kenya, have seven days from the date of service to respond, while the petitioners may file rejoinders within seven days thereafter.
“The application and submissions to the application be physically served within three days, and a return of service be filed,” stated the judge.
The case has been scheduled for further directions on November 5, 2025.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
President William Ruto signs a Bill into law at State House, Nairobi.[PCS]
President William Ruto’s administration has suffered a major legal setback after the High Court in Nairobi suspended the implementation
of key provisions of the controversial
Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued conservatory orders halting the enforcement, implementation, and operation of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), and 27(2) of the amended law, pending the hearing and determination of a petition filed by renowned activist and musician Reuben Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).
The court order
came just a day after the petitioners, Kigame and KHRC, filed their case under a certificate of urgency at the Milimani Law Courts, where they argued that the amended provisions posed a direct threat to constitutionally protected freedoms, including freedom of expression, media rights, and digital communication.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
“Pending the hearing and determination of this application, a conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the enforcement, implementation, and operation of Section 27(1)(b), (c), and (2) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025,” ruled Justice Mugambi.
According to the petitioners, the contested sections of the law are overbroad and vague, creating an avenue for the criminalisation of dissent, whistleblowing, satire, and online criticism of public officials and government policies.
They warned that, if allowed to operate, the provisions would have a chilling effect on public interest journalism and digital activism.
The petitioners further argued that the amendments could be weaponised by state agencies to intimidate journalists, bloggers, political activists, and citizens who voice dissent on digital platforms.
Section 27 of the original Act has previously been criticised by civil society for criminalising the publication of “false,” “misleading,” or “disturbing” content online, terms that have been widely viewed as subjective and prone to abuse.
According to the petitioners
, the government and MPs hurriedly and procedurally improperly passed the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and procured its assent by President Ruto on October 25 2025, in blatant violation of the prescribed constitutional process.
They also assert that the law was fast-tracked through Parliament without being sent to the Senate, in contravention of Article 110 of the Constitution.
He argues that this makes the entire process “fatally flawed” and unconstitutional.
“The Bill, being a bill concerning county governments, was never referred to the Senate for consideration as mandatorily required under Article 110 of the Constitution, rendering the resultant Act unconstitutional, null and void,” Kigame states in his affidavit.
Specifically, they point to criminalisation of the publication of “false, misleading, or fictitious data,” a provision they say is overly broad and unclear.
Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletter
“The lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary enforcement, severely curbing free speech,” says Kigame, the first petitioner.
In their application
, filed under Articles 22, 23, 159, and other relevant provisions of the Constitution, the petitioners urge the High Court to issue an order suspending the operationalisation of the law until the constitutional issues raised can be fully addressed.
“If the law is allowed to take effect, it will irreparably harm our rights and freedoms. The public interest in protecting digital freedoms outweighs any potential harm to the respondents,” the petitioners argued.
Justice Mugambi ordered the petitioners to serve the application and supporting documents to all respondents within three days.
Respondents who include the Attorney General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and other interested parties, including the Kenya Union of Journalists and the Law Society of Kenya, have seven days from the date of service to respond, while the petitioners may file rejoinders within seven days thereafter.
“The application and submissions to the application be physically served within three days, and a return of service be filed,” stated the judge.
The case has been scheduled for further directions on November 5, 2025.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
By Nancy Gitonga