Kenyans have received a significant victory in the fight for digital freedom after the High Court temporarily stopped parts of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 that gave the government power to close social media platforms and block websites.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi made the ruling on Thursday, saying that the suspended sections will remain inactive until the court fully hears and decides on petitions challenging their legality.
This decision is being celebrated as a major step toward protecting freedom of expression and online communication in Kenya.
In his ruling, Justice Mugambi suspended Sections 27(1)(b) and 6 of the Act, which had allowed the government to shut down social media platforms or block mobile applications accused of spreading unlawful content.
He explained that the suspension will last until six ongoing petitions against the law are concluded.
The court order followed an agreement among all parties involved in the case. “Following the parties’ agreement, the court adopts the same as a consent order and allows the suspension of Sections 6 and 27 pending hearing and determination of this case,” the judge said.
One of the most controversial clauses, Section 6(1)(j)(a), had raised alarm among digital rights advocates.
The section gave the state power to block online platforms accused of carrying obscene or intimidating material, including content involving minors. Critics said this provision was too vague and could easily be abused to silence dissent or control political discussions online under the pretext of protecting public morality and national security.
The suspension of this clause has been welcomed as a move that prevents potential misuse of government power over digital spaces.
Justice Mugambi clarified that social media platforms will continue to operate as usual while the case proceeds. He emphasized that freedom of expression and access to information are constitutional rights that must be respected.
He also reminded the state that it should not interfere with online communication until the court gives its final verdict.
The judge highlighted that digital platforms play a vital role in connecting people, supporting businesses, and enabling civic engagement.
Therefore, any move to limit their use must be legal, necessary, and proportionate.
Attorney General’s lawyer, Paul Nyamodi, informed the court that the government had agreed with other parties to limit the suspension to the two most disputed sections.
He explained that the earlier suspension of the entire Act was too broad and affected parts that were meant to fight digital crime.
On the other hand, a lawyer representing the Communications Authority, Patrick Lutta, argued that the complete suspension had interfered with efforts to protect Kenyans from online crimes such as fraud, cyberbullying, and data theft.
The petitions challenging the law were filed by gospel musician Reuben Kigame and Kirinyaga Woman Representative Jane Njeri.
They said that the amendments signed into law by President William Ruto on October 15, 2025, were unconstitutional and gave the government sweeping powers to restrict digital platforms.
They argued that such laws could easily be used to silence journalists, activists, and ordinary Kenyans expressing opinions online.
Digital rights organizations and civil society groups praised the court’s ruling, saying it acts as a safeguard against government censorship.
They warned that without the suspension, Kenya risked moving toward a digital environment where free speech could be criminalized.
Legal experts also noted that the suspension gives the court enough time to examine whether the Act truly aligns with the principles of the Constitution.
Kenyans can continue to use platforms like Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) without worrying about sudden government shutdowns or interference.
