Activist Francis Awino has filed a petition in the High Court challenging the newly amended Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, arguing that it poses a grave threat to freedom of expression and media freedom.
Awino is asking the court to suspend the law immediately, saying its vague wording could criminalize almost any form of online criticism and allow the state to silence dissent without judicial oversight.
Awino, who filed the petition in person from Nairobi, has named a powerful roster of respondents: the Attorney General, the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NCCCC), the Inspector-General of Police, and Parliament. The case pits a lone activist against the government’s top legal and security institutions in what could become a landmark fight for digital rights in Kenya.
At the heart of the dispute are changes to Section 27 of the Act, which now broadens the definition of “cyber harassment.” Under the new law, any online post could be deemed criminal if it allegedly causes “serious emotional distress” or “mental harm,” even without intent to harm.
Awino argues that the section’s vague language grants law enforcement excessive power, creating a “legal minefield” for journalists, whistleblowers, and citizens critical of government actions.
He cites what he describes as a rise in arbitrary arrests and intimidation of online users since the law’s enactment, warning that it has already begun chilling free speech.
Even more contentious is a clause granting the NCCCC authority to order the takedown of websites or block social media accounts without a court order. Awino calls this an unconstitutional overreach “state censorship disguised as cybersecurity.”
Awino has applied for conservatory orders, asking the court to suspend Section 27 pending the hearing and determination of the petition. He also wants the NCCCC barred from issuing takedown or blocking directives without judicial approval.
The petition invokes multiple provisions of Kenya’s Constitution, including Articles 33, 34, 47, and 50, which guarantee freedom of expression, media freedom, fair administrative action, and fair hearing. Awino contends that the amended law offends these rights by creating broad, subjective offenses and by allowing executive overreach without due process.
He further argues that Parliament violated the principle of legality by passing an ambiguous law that citizens cannot reasonably interpret or comply with. According to Awino, the amendment effectively reintroduces criminal defamation, previously struck down by the courts, and imposes disproportionate penalties ; fines of up to KSh 20 million or 10 years in prison for online posts deemed offensive.
Additionally, he faults Parliament for failing to ensure meaningful public participation, claiming the amendments were rushed through without adequate stakeholder consultation.
The petition marks the latest chapter in Kenya’s ongoing debate over digital freedom versus state regulation. Legal analysts say the outcome will test the judiciary’s resolve in defending constitutional rights in the digital era, where online speech has become both a tool for accountability and a target for control.
If the court grants Awino’s request for temporary relief, the government’s expanded powers under the cyber law will be suspended, setting the stage for a constitutional showdown over the balance between cybersecurity and civil liberties.
All eyes now turn to the High Court, which is expected to set a date for the urgent hearing.
