A magistrate’s court has dismissed criminal charges against Human Rights Defender Rose Njeri Tunguru, ruling that the charges failed to meet the legal threshold required for prosecution. Civil society groups have hailed the decision as a reaffirmation of constitutional protections for freedom of expression and innovation.
Njeri had been arrested and charged under Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (2018), a provision that criminalizes the unauthorized interference with computer systems, including data or networks. The charges related to content she had shared online in the course of her public interest advocacy work. However, the prosecution failed to demonstrate how her actions constituted a violation of the law.
The court found that the two charges launched by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) against Rose Njeri were ambiguous, lacked clarity, and did not show that any offence had been committed. In delivering the ruling, the magistrate noted that the evidence presented failed to establish the essential elements of an offence under the Act and did not justify the criminal proceedings launched against her.
Njeri, a well-known human rights advocate who has consistently used digital platforms to highlight issues of governance and accountability, expressed relief at the ruling. She maintained throughout the proceedings that the charges were an attempt to criminalize her civic work and intimidate those who use digital tools to push for transparency and justice.
Her arrest had sparked concern across Kenya’s human rights community, particularly over the use of vague cybercrime provisions to target dissenting voices. Section 16 of the Cybercrimes Act, while designed to address legitimate cybersecurity threats, has increasingly been cited in cases involving civic actors, bloggers, and content creators often in contexts unrelated to actual computer system breaches.
This case once again brought into focus the ongoing debate around the use and misuse of Kenya’s cybercrime laws, with critics arguing that broad and loosely defined sections of the Act provide authorities with too much discretion to stifle free expression. Civil society organizations had called for the charges against Njeri to be dropped, warning that they represented a dangerous precedent for arbitrary criminalization of online activity.
The court’s ruling was seen as a critical moment in resisting this trend. By throwing out the charges on grounds of lack of legal threshold, the judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law must be applied with precision, and not as a blunt tool for silencing critical voices.
Legal experts say the ruling underscores the need for reform within the Cybercrimes Act, particularly to protect human rights defenders and ensure that laws meant for cybersecurity are not used to curtail constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
For Njeri and many others working in Kenya’s digital civic space, the court’s decision offers renewed hope that justice and constitutionalism can prevail even in an increasingly hostile environment for activism. It also sends a strong message to authorities: freedom of expression and innovation for the public good must not be subjected to vague or arbitrary prosecution.