High Court suspends key provisions of Ruto's newly assented cybercrime law

The High Court has temporarily suspended the enforcement of key provisions of President William Ruto’s newly assented Computer Misuse Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, pending the determination of a constitutional petition challenging its legality.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, issued conservatory orders halting the implementation of Sections 27(1)(b), 27(1)(c), and 27(2) of the amended law.

The sections had sparked concern among rights groups over their potential impact on free expression and digital rights.

The orders were granted following an urgent application filed by gospel musician and activist Reuben Kigame alongside the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC).

"Pending the hearing and determination of this application, a conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the enforcement, implementation, and operation of section 27 (1) (b), (c), and (2) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025," Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled.

The said sections pertain to cyber harassment, specifically criminalising electronic communication deemed to “detrimentally affect another person” or content considered “indecent or grossly offensive in nature.”

Under Section 27 of the law, a person convicted of such an offence faces a fine of up to Sh20 million, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.

The suspended provisions are part of amendments signed into law by President William Ruto earlier on October 15, 2025.

In its challenge in court, the two parties had argued that Section 27 of the principal Act, which introduces penalties for communication said to "cause another person to commit suicide," lacked clarity.

Kigame and KHRC term this clause “unconstitutionally vague,” noting that it fails to define what constitutes such communication or establish a clear legal threshold for causation. 

They warn that this could lead to arbitrary prosecutions without any objective or measurable standard.

Beyond substantive issues, the petitioners also fault Parliament over alleged procedural flaws in passing the amendment. 

They claim the Bill should have been treated as one “concerning county governments” under Article 110(1) of the Constitution because it affects devolved functions, such as information management and community policing. 

However, they say the National Assembly failed to refer the Bill to the Senate for concurrence, as per the constitution, making the law procedurally defective.

The petition further states that creating a parallel framework for data collection and oversight that bypasses the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) undermines Data Protection Act

According to the petitioners, this dilutes the independence of the ODPC and weakens safeguards meant to prevent misuse of personal data.

The Media Council of Kenya, the Kenya Union of Journalists, and the Law Society of Kenya have been listed as interested parties.

Kigame and KHRC are asking the court to declare the entire amendment unconstitutional, null, and void, and to issue a permanent order restraining the State from enforcing its provisions.

The matter is set for further directions on November 5, 2025.