A fresh legal battle has emerged in Kenya as gospel artist and activist Reuben Kigame joins forces with the Kenya Human Rights Commission to challenge the recently enacted Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024.
The two petitioners have moved to the High Court seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional, warning that it grants the government sweeping powers to monitor and suppress citizens’ online activity.
The petition, filed in Nairobi, argues that the legislation infringes on the constitutional rights to privacy, free expression, and access to information.
President William Ruto signed the law on October 15, 2025, amid widespread criticism from civil society, journalists, and digital rights advocates who said it could be weaponized against dissent.
Under the new amendments, all social media users must verify their accounts using government-issued identification documents. Critics say this measure could expose activists, whistleblowers, and opposition voices to state surveillance.
Kigame and the KHRC argue that the law is vague and overly broad, giving the state arbitrary authority to decide what constitutes truth or falsehood online.
“The petitioners argue that this vague and overbroad definition effectively grants the regime the discretion to determine what constitutes truth and to punish those who speak out against it,” part of the filing reads.
The law also empowers authorities to compel digital platforms to delete or restrict posts deemed offensive, potentially stifling legitimate public debate and criticism.
“This law criminalizes speech on the basis of speculation,” the petition continues. “It targets communication that the state claims could hypothetically cause harm, without any demonstrable link between expression and outcome.”
The petitioners further claim that the law’s mandatory verification clause violates Article 31 of Kenya’s Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy.
By forcing citizens to link their online profiles to their national identity, the law creates a direct channel for state surveillance and intimidation, especially of those who criticize the government.
Human rights groups say this measure could lead to self-censorship and the silencing of marginalized voices in digital spaces.
“The mandatory verification requirement constitutes a blanket infringement of the right to privacy,” reads another section of the petition. “It forces the unnecessary revelation of private affairs and directly infringes upon the privacy of communications.”
Kigame, who has been an outspoken critic of government overreach, says the law risks turning Kenya into a surveillance state under the guise of combating cybercrime.
He warned that activists and journalists have previously been targeted for exposing corruption and human rights abuses, and this law could make them even more vulnerable.
Kenya Human Rights Commission Executive Director Davis Malombe echoed those concerns, describing the new legislation as a threat to democracy and freedom of expression.
“This law gives the state the tools to monitor, silence, and even endanger its critics,” Malombe said in a statement shared with the Africa Standard. “It must be stopped before it erodes the very foundation of constitutional governance.”
The petition also challenges the procedure used to pass the Bill, claiming that it was unconstitutional because the Senate was not consulted even though the law affects county functions.
According to the petitioners, the Constitution requires any law impacting county governance to undergo debate and approval in both Houses of Parliament.
Digital rights experts warn that the law could have a chilling effect on online speech, forcing citizens to self-censor for fear of prosecution.
“This will lead to a culture of silence where citizens are afraid to criticize the government or express alternative opinions,” said technology policy analyst Dr. Grace Mutua.
Kenya’s Ministry of Information and Communication has defended the law, insisting it is necessary to combat fake news, online fraud, and digital harassment.
However, critics point out that existing laws already address such crimes, and the new amendments instead appear designed to strengthen state control over the digital sphere.
The High Court is expected to set a hearing date in the coming weeks. Legal observers say the outcome could have major implications for online freedom and digital privacy in Kenya.
As the case progresses, civil society groups and opposition figures have vowed to continue mobilizing against what they call “digital authoritarianism.”
For now, many Kenyans await the court’s decision, hoping it will safeguard their right to speak freely and securely in the country’s increasingly digital democracy.
