Kenya’s recently enacted Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendments) Act, 2025 has raised serious concerns over potential threats to online freedom of expression. Passed by Parliament and assented to by President William Ruto on October 15, the amendments broaden an already controversial 2018 law, risking the criminalization of legitimate online speech. Human Rights Watch has called for the overbroad provisions to be repealed to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The original Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, enacted in 2018 to address cyber fraud, identity theft, and data breaches, already included provisions criminalizing “false or fictitious” news with heavy penalties. The 2025 amendments expand these powers further, prompting warnings from civil society that they could suppress dissent and restrict online speech.
Human Rights Watch’s Associate Africa Director, Otsieno Namwaya, highlighted that the law grants authorities greater power to restrict online speech through vague provisions, undermining Kenya’s constitutional and international obligations to protect freedom of expression. The High Court has suspended some sections of the 2018 law pending constitutional review, including provisions criminalizing communication that is “detrimentally affecting a person or is of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,” which carry potential penalties of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of 20 million Kenyan shillings.
Other provisions of the 2025 amendments are now in force. Section 3 expands the authority of the National Computer and Cybercrime Co-ordination Committee (NC4) to block websites and applications that promote “unlawful activities and religious extremism.” Section 5 amends rules against phishing via email or calls, though vague language risks penalizing ordinary communications or targeting citizens expressing dissent, including investigative journalists.
Critics warn that such provisions could criminalize participatory governance, as Kenyans often communicate directly with officials to voice concerns or support for policies. Previous applications of the law have already been used to silence dissent. For instance, blogger Bonface Mondi Nyangla faced charges for allegedly posting offensive remarks about a former Nairobi governor, while political commentator Maverick Aoko was charged with cyber harassment for controversial posts.
Civil society groups, including the Kenya ICT Action Network, ARTICLE 19, and the Bloggers Association of Kenya, have consistently criticized the law’s vague and overbroad provisions. While some improvements in judicial oversight were introduced in the 2025 amendments, including requirements for the NC4 to seek court approval before restricting access to websites, Sections 3 and 5 still pose significant threats to online freedoms.
The law is part of a troubling regional trend where cybercrime legislation has been used to stifle online expression. Similar measures in Nigeria and Tanzania have been employed to arrest journalists and government critics, highlighting the risk of abuse.
Kenya’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, subject only to reasonable limitations, and international human rights standards, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration on Freedom of Expression, require that restrictions on speech be precise, necessary, and proportionate. Broadly worded terms like “extremism” and “offensive” fail to meet these standards, leaving citizens vulnerable to arbitrary enforcement.
Human Rights Watch has called on Kenyan authorities to repeal the problematic provisions of the 2025 amendments and ensure that future laws protect, rather than undermine, free expression. Parliament is urged to conduct transparent consultations, reflecting the concerns of civil society, legal experts, and digital rights advocates, to align the law with both constitutional and international human rights obligations.
Otsieno Namwaya stated, “Kenyan authorities should urgently repeal the problematic provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendments) Act, 2025 and ensure that subsequent laws protect, not violate, free expression.”
