Justice Mande argued that the National Assembly had provided adequate opportunities for public participation before passing the Bill and further ruled that the Senate’s involvement was not necessary because the legislation did not concern county governments.
High Court Declares Parts of Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act Unconstitutional
Share
The High Court has declared provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional, striking down sections that gave the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4) powers to order the blocking of websites and other digital platforms.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday, July 2, Justice Patricia Nyaundi held that Sections 6(1) and 27(1) of the amended law violated constitutional protections on fundamental rights and freedoms.
The court further ruled that the provisions failed to meet the constitutional threshold under Article 24, which sets the conditions under which rights and freedoms may be limited.
Court Nullifies Website Blocking Powers in Cybercrimes Law
Therefore, Justice Nyaundi declared unconstitutional the provisions that empowered the NC4 to issue directives requiring websites, applications, and other online platforms to be made inaccessible.
Also Read: Court Stops NTSA From Enforcing Mandatory Annual Car Inspections
He noted that section 6(1) had allowed the committee to order the blocking of digital platforms it determined were promoting unlawful activities, terrorism, religious extremism, cultism, or indecent sexual content involving minors.
However, the court found that granting the committee such powers unjustifiably limited the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and media freedom.
As a result, it struck down the offence of cyber harassment introduced under the amended law.
According to the court, the provision was vague and overly broad, making it inconsistent with the Constitution and incapable of meeting the legal standard required to limit fundamental rights under Article 24.
Justice Nyaundi held that the wording of the offence could potentially result in arbitrary enforcement and unjustified restrictions on constitutional freedoms.
Judge Upholds Parliamentary Process
She also invalidated Section 27(1)(b) of the amended law, which criminalised communication considered likely to cause another person to commit suicide.
The judge ruled that the provision was vague and overly broad because it failed to clearly define the conduct that would amount to a criminal offence and was based on speculative standards.
Also Read: Major Blow to Ruto as High Court Declares Cabinet Unconstitutional
She held that imposing criminal liability based on communication merely “likely” to result in suicide offended the constitutional principle of legality because it relied on subjective and uncertain criteria.
Despite declaring the two sections unconstitutional, the court dismissed challenges to the manner in which Parliament enacted the amendments.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates
A photo of Justice Patricia Nyaundi .Photo/ Judiciary