Monday, 9 March 2026 | Author – Alex Onyango | Nairobi-Kenya | Screenshot: NTV Kenya/YouTube | GT-News |
Kenya’s Court of Appeal has struck down key provisions of the country’s 2018 cybercrime law that criminalized the publication of “false” or “misleading” information online, in a ruling welcomed by media freedom advocates as a major step for freedom of expression.
The decision followed a legal challenge filed by the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), which contested 26 provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018, arguing that the law was vague, lacked a clear requirement of criminal intent, and violated constitutional protections for freedom of expression, media freedom, and privacy.
In its ruling, the appellate court declared Sections 22 and 23 of the law unconstitutional. The judges said the provisions, which criminalized publishing “false, misleading, or fictitious data,” were overly broad and could unfairly target innocent citizens.
The court described the provisions as “so broad, wide, untargeted, akin to unguided missiles,” warning that they could easily be used to suppress legitimate speech and would also be difficult to prove in court.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) welcomed the decision, saying the provisions had often been used by powerful individuals to silence critical reporting and commentary.
“The Court of Appeal’s decision to nullify legal provisions criminalizing the publication of false news is a significant win for the media,” said Muthoki Mumo, CPJ’s Africa Program Coordinator. She added, however, that reforms are still needed, particularly regarding sections of the law that impose harsh penalties for the vaguely defined offense of cyber harassment.
While striking down the two provisions, the three-judge bench upheld the rest of the law, rejecting claims that it grants authorities unchecked surveillance powers or violates privacy rights.
The court also upheld Section 27, which criminalizes cyber harassment and carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prisonfor sending communications deemed “indecent,” “grossly offensive,” or detrimental to the recipient. The judges ruled that the petitioners had not demonstrated how the provision violates freedom of expression.
Mercy Mutemi, the lawyer representing BAKE, described the ruling as a “vindication,” but said the legal fight is not over.
“We strongly believe in the sanctity of the right to privacy,” she said.
Meanwhile, Al Shifaa Media journalist Peter Maseke Mwita, who was charged with cyber harassment in February over a mistaken WhatsApp message, is expected to return to court in April.
