Kenya’s New Cybercrime Law Amendments Pose Grave Threat to Digital Rights and Free Speech

Authorities Must Repeal Vague and Overbroad Provisions Used to Criminalize Dissent

(Nairobi, November 2025) – The Kenyan government is using newly enacted amendments to the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act to severely curtail online freedom of expression and silence critical voices, Human Rights Watch said today. The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendments) Act, 2025, which was passed by Parliament and assented to by President William Ruto on October 15, expands an already problematic law with dangerously vague provisions that risk criminalizing legitimate speech, satire, investigative journalism, and public participation.

While ostensibly designed to address genuine threats like cyber fraud and data breaches, the amendments grant authorities sweeping powers to target dissent under the guise of combating “offensive” communication or “unlawful activities.” This move represents a significant step backward for one of Africa’s most dynamic digital economies and democracies.

“The Kenyan government is weaponizing cybercrime law to create a climate of fear online,” said Otsieno Namwaya, associate Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “These amendments are not about security; they are about control. They provide the state with a legal cudgel to batter down criticism and discourage citizens from speaking truth to power.”

A Deeply Flawed Law, Now Made Worse

The original Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act of 2018 was controversial from its inception, containing provisions that criminalized the publication of “false or fictitious” news—a term so broad it could encompass any information the government dislikes. The 2025 amendments double down on this approach, broadening the law’s scope and severity.

Civil society groups, including the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet), ARTICLE 19, and the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), have consistently warned that the law’s vague language invites abuse. Their concerns were validated when, on October 22, 2025, the High Court suspended sections 27(1)(b), (c), and (2) of the 2018 Act pending a constitutional review. These provisions, which criminalize communication that is “indecent,” “grossly offensive,” or “detrimentally affects a person,” had been used to impose draconian penalties, including fines of up to 20 million Kenyan shillings (approx. US$150,000) and prison sentences of up to 10 years.

However, other problematic amendments have now come into force, creating new avenues for the suppression of free speech.

Key Problematic Provisions and Their Chilling Effects

• Expanded Powers for Content Takedowns: Section 3 of the amendment bolsters the authority of the National Computer and Cybercrime Co-ordination Committee (NC4), allowing it to order the restriction of access to websites or applications that promote “unlawful activities and religious extremism.” While the requirement for judicial oversight, introduced via a new section 46A, is a minor improvement from earlier drafts, the core terms remain dangerously undefined. What constitutes “unlawful activities” in a political context? This vagueness could easily be exploited to block access to independent news sites, opposition platforms, or civil society resources documenting government abuses.

• Criminalizing Everyday Communication: Section 5 amends the law’s anti-phishing provisions. While combating online scams is a legitimate goal, the law’s broad phrasing risks penalizing unsolicited but non-fraudulent communications. In a country where citizens increasingly use direct calls, emails, and social media to petition their elected officials, this provision could be twisted to target individuals who persistently criticize or question government policy, framing their civic engagement as a form of digital harassment.

A Pattern of Silencing Dissent

The fears surrounding this law are not hypothetical. Kenyan authorities have a track record of using the 2018 Act to silence critics. In previous years, blogger Bonface Mondi Nyang’wa was charged for allegedly posting offensive remarks about a former governor, and political commentator Maverick Aoko faced cyber harassment charges for her controversial online posts. The 2025 amendments provide an even larger legal arsenal for such actions, signaling a clear intent to intensify the crackdown on digital dissent.

“The government talks about public participation, but when we raised our concerns, they were largely ignored,” said Kennedy Kachwanya, chairperson of the Bloggers Association of Kenya, in an interview with Human Rights Watch. “This amended Act is a direct threat to our digital rights and the very foundation of our democracy. We demand an immediate suspension and a comprehensive review of these provisions.”

Contradicting Constitutional and International Obligations

The amendments place Kenya in direct violation of its own constitution and its commitments under international law.

• Article 33 of the Kenyan Constitution (2010) guarantees the right to freedom of expression, permitting restrictions only where they are “reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.” The vague and disproportionate nature of the cybercrime amendments fails this test.

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Kenya is a party, protects freedom of expression in its Article 19. The UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that this right fully applies online and that restrictions must be precisely defined by law and necessary for a legitimate aim. Terms like “offensive” or “extremism” are inherently subjective and fail this requirement of legal precision.

• The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression (2019) explicitly calls on states to repeal laws that criminalize false news and insult, and to avoid custodial sentences for speech-related offenses (Principle 22).

Furthermore, Kenya’s position as a founding member of the Freedom Online Coalition—a group of governments committed to advancing internet freedom—makes this repressive legislation deeply hypocritical and undermines its standing on the global stage.

A Regional Trend of Digital Repression

Kenya is sadly following a regional playbook. In Nigeria, the Cybercrimes Act has been repeatedly used to arrest journalists and activists for criticizing public officials. In Tanzania, repressive online content regulations have led to arbitrary arrests and attacks on government critics. By enacting these amendments, the Kenyan government is aligning itself with regimes that use cybercrime laws as tools of political suppression rather than instruments of justice.

The Way Forward: Repeal and Align with Rights

Human Rights Watch calls on the Kenyan authorities to:

1. Immediately repeal the vague and overbroad provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendments) Act, 2025, particularly those that criminalize protected speech.

2. Initiate a transparent and inclusive review process involving civil society, legal experts, and digital rights advocates to draft legislation that genuinely addresses cybercrime while firmly upholding constitutional and international human rights standards.

3. Ensure that any future laws imposing restrictions on online expression are precisely defined, necessary, and proportionate, and that their enforcement is subject to robust independent judicial oversight.

“Kenya is at a crossroads,” Namwaya said. “It can choose the path of openness and democratic debate, or it can descend into the murky world of digital authoritarianism. The government must urgently reverse course, repeal these draconian amendments, and reaffirm its commitment to the fundamental right of every Kenyan to speak freely and without fear.”

  Donate Here