The High Court in Kerugoya has dealt a major blow to President William Ruto’s administration after issuing conservatory orders suspending the implementation of Section 6(1)(ja) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. The ruling follows a petition filed by a concerned citizen challenging the constitutionality of the new amendment.
According to the petitioner, the contested provision grants the government sweeping powers to arbitrarily shut down social media platforms and impose vague censorship measures on mainstream media outlets.
The petitioner argued that such authority violates Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of the media, respectively.
Also Read
- Boni Khalwale Fires Back At Mudavadi And Wetangula After They warned Him
- Shortlisted Candidates For SHA Jobs- Here Is The Full List
- Speculations As Opposition Leader Is Spotted With UDA Candidate Ahead Of By-Election (Video)
- Video: Natembeya Speaks After Musalia Mudavadi Warned He Will Destroy Him In 2027
- Mudavadi Warns Governor Natembeya Over TAWE Movement as Political Temperatures Rise in Western Kenya
In the court’s interim ruling, the Kerugoya High Court noted that the issues raised in the petition were weighty and merited full hearing before any implementation of the contentious amendment.
The judge therefore ordered a temporary suspension pending inter-parties hearing, ensuring that the status quo remains until the matter is determined.
The decision has sparked widespread debate across the country, with digital rights activists and civil society organizations welcoming the move as a victory for democracy and free speech. They have cautioned against attempts to curtail online freedoms under the guise of cybersecurity.
However, sources within the government have defended the amendment, saying it seeks to regulate harmful online content, misinformation, and cyber threats that have increasingly become a national concern.
As the case heads for a full hearing, the spotlight is now firmly on the judiciary to determine whether the government’s move is a genuine attempt to ensure digital safety or a veiled effort to control public discourse and silence dissenting voices.
