Kenya website blocking powers granted to a government cybercrime committee have been struck down by the High Court, in a ruling that limits the state’s ability to restrict online platforms without judicial approval.
The court invalidated key parts of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, after hearing petitions challenging the law. One of the petitions was filed by Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina.
At the center of the dispute was Section 6(1)(j)(a), which had allowed the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee, known as NC4, to order internet service providers to block websites and apps. The provision covered platforms the committee determined were hosting terrorism-related material, extremist content, cult activity or child sexual exploitation content.
The court did not reject the government’s interest in addressing harmful online material. Instead, it faulted the process created by the law, saying a government committee could not be given broad authority to decide what content should be blocked without first going before a court.
Kenya Website Blocking Power Fails Constitutional Test
The ruling turns on a core constitutional question: who gets to decide when online speech can be blocked?
The High Court found that Section 6(1)(j)(a) gave NC4 too much power with too few checks. By allowing the committee to order internet providers to restrict access before a court reviewed the material, the law created a mechanism for censorship without adequate safeguards.
The court treated the provision as a form of prior restraint. In legal terms, that means the state can stop speech before an independent process determines whether it is unlawful.
That standard is especially serious in cases involving expression, media, digital platforms and public debate. The court’s reasoning suggests that even where the state is pursuing legitimate goals, restrictions on digital content must be narrowly drawn and subject to judicial oversight.
Court Says Existing Legal Process Made NC4 Power Redundant
The ruling also noted that Parliament had already created a separate procedure for blocking content that involved the courts.
That weakened the government’s position. If a judicially supervised process already existed, the court found no convincing reason to give NC4 a shortcut that bypassed that oversight.
The state was required to show that the disputed power was necessary and that no less restrictive method could achieve the same purpose. According to the ruling, it failed to meet that standard.
That finding matters beyond this single law. It signals that Kenyan courts may scrutinize executive powers more closely when they affect internet access, online publishing and digital rights.
For internet service providers, the decision removes a legal route that could have compelled them to block websites or apps based solely on a committee directive under the invalidated section.
Criminal Communication Clause Also Struck Down
The High Court also struck down Section 27(1)(b) of the amendment.
That provision had made it an offense to send communication that was considered likely to lead another person toward self-harm. The court found the wording too vague for a criminal law.
Judges said criminal offenses must be clearly defined so people can understand what conduct is prohibited before they face prosecution. The phrase used in the law was considered too subjective and open-ended to meet that requirement.
The decision reflects a broader constitutional concern: unclear criminal provisions can chill lawful speech because citizens may avoid expression out of fear that authorities could interpret their words too broadly.
Public Participation Challenge Fails
Not all arguments against the law succeeded.
The court rejected claims that Parliament passed the amendment without adequate public participation. It found that lawmakers gave citizens a meaningful opportunity to present their views before the bill became law.
The court also dismissed the argument that the Senate should have been involved. It held that the amendment did not concern county government matters, meaning Senate participation was not required.
Those findings leave the legislative process largely intact while removing specific provisions the court found unconstitutional.
Earlier Court Action Had Already Weakened the Amendment
The ruling follows earlier litigation against the same cybercrime amendment.
In October 2025, a separate judge suspended other provisions after a petition by musician and activist Reuben Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission. Those challenged sections dealt with cyber harassment and online messages described as offensive, indecent or emotionally distressing.
Critics argued that the language was too broad and could punish legitimate criticism or uncomfortable online speech. The penalties under those provisions were steep, including fines of up to KES 20 million or prison terms of up to 10 years.
The latest decision adds another major setback for the amendment and strengthens the argument that cybercrime laws must be drafted with greater precision when they regulate expression.
Business and Digital Rights Impact
The ruling carries immediate significance for Kenya’s internet economy.
Digital publishers, civil society organizations, online platforms and businesses depend on predictable rules for when content can be restricted. A system that allows website blocking without court review can create uncertainty for media companies, e-commerce operators, bloggers and technology platforms.
For investors and platform operators, the judgment may be read as a positive signal that courts are willing to check broad administrative powers over the internet. That matters in a market where digital services, online payments, creator platforms and news publishing continue to expand.
For the government, the ruling does not eliminate the ability to fight harmful online content. It requires authorities to use lawful, proportionate and court-supervised channels when seeking restrictions.
That distinction is important. The court’s decision is not a rejection of cybercrime enforcement. It is a rejection of enforcement tools that bypass constitutional safeguards.
Wider Cybercrime Fight Continues
Kenya’s legal battle over digital surveillance and cybercrime enforcement is not over.
A separate case challenging provisions of the original 2018 Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act is headed to the Supreme Court. That case concerns rules allowing state agencies to intercept phone calls, emails and other digital communications through court-issued surveillance orders.
The challenge was brought by the Bloggers Association of Kenya, the Law Society of Kenya, Article 19 Eastern Africa and the Kenya Union of Journalists. It followed a Court of Appeal decision that struck down some surveillance rules while leaving others in place.
The outcome of that Supreme Court case could shape the next phase of Kenya’s digital rights framework.
For now, the High Court’s latest ruling sets a clear boundary: the government cannot use a committee process to block websites and apps without judicial oversight. The next issue to watch is whether Parliament revises the cybercrime law with narrower language and stronger court-supervised safeguards.
