A controversial proposal by Kenya’s Members of Parliament to allocate Ksh. 150 million towards tracking social media users . The allocation, embedded within the latest recommendations raises the bill for the national government to Ksh 2.54 trillion.
The proposed funding aims to equip the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) with a sophisticated surveillance system, reportedly known as “Optimus 3.0.” This technology is said to be capable of identifying social media users across various platforms, tracing their locations, and linking posts to specific devices through connection data. Lawmakers assert that this move is a crucial step in bolstering efforts to combat crime and online misinformation, aiming to create a more secure digital environment.
However, the financial implications of this proposal extend beyond the direct cost of the surveillance system. To accommodate this and other increases in the national budget, significant cuts have been recommended for vital public services. The National Fund for the Disabled of Kenya faces a proposed cut of Ksh. 400 million, while the education sector is slated for even larger reductions, including a combined Ksh. 5 billion loss in capitation for secondary and junior secondary education. These reallocations have drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates and education policy researchers, who argue that essential services are being sidelined in favor of surveillance technology.
“It’s worrying that critical services for the disabled are being sidelined while funds go to spy tech,” stated James Kilonzo, a Nairobi-based human rights lawyer, as reported by Switch News. “It sends the wrong message.” Similarly, education policy researcher Rose Atieno lamented, “That’s a big blow to students across the country. We’re sending children back to crowded classrooms with fewer resources.”
The move to acquire and operate Optimus 3.0 has prompted a broader discussion about the balance between national security and individual freedoms. Critics argue that such powerful surveillance tools, if not subjected to stringent judicial oversight and transparent reporting requirements, pose a substantial risk to privacy rights and could be used to stifle political dissent. Digital rights advocates warn that systems intended for combating misinformation today could become instruments against freedom of expression tomorrow, leading to self-censorship and a chilling effect on public discourse.
The National Assembly is expected to debate the committee’s recommendations this week, and the outcome will significantly shape Kenya’s financial trajectory and the ongoing public discourse surrounding national priorities and digital governance. The decision will not only define how the nation allocates its resources for the coming year but also underscore its stance on the delicate balance between security and the fundamental rights of its citizens in the ever-evolving digital age.