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
- Matiang’i Speaks On Working With Sifuna To Defeat Ruto In Election
- Matiang’i Speaks On Leaving the United opposition And Joining Hands With Ruto Before 2027
- Matiang’i Finally Speaks On Being Uhuru’s Project Ahead Of 2027 Election
- Oburu Finally Reveals What Sifuna Did That Left Raila Very Angry
- Oburu Odinga Finally Reveals What He Did To Sifuna The Moment He Embarrassed Raila In Kakamega (Video)
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.
About the Author
