As Kenya came together to mourn the passing of statesman Rt.Raila Amolo Odinga EGH, President William Ruto quietly signed eight bills into law on October 15, 2025.
The signed bills include the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment ) Act 2024, National Land Commission (Amendment), Land (Amendment), Wildlife Conservation (Amendment), National Police Service Commission (Amendment), Air Passenger Service Charge, Virtual Asset Service Providers, and Privatisation Acts. While the move was part of routine governance, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024 has drawn particular attention for its potential impact on digital rights and online expression.
The amended Act seeks to strengthen laws around online fraud, cyberbullying, and misinformation, aiming to make Kenya’s digital ecosystem safer. However, some of its provisions could have a chilling effect on online speech. Vague terms and broad enforcement powers risk being used to target journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens expressing their views online a concern that mirrors the controversies surrounding the original 2018 Act.
The Act introduces stiffer penalties for offences such as publishing false information, identity theft, and unauthorized SIM swaps. For example, publishing false or misleading information with intent to mislead the public now attracts fines of up to KSh 5 million or a prison term not exceeding two years, while publishing false information that could cause panic, chaos, or damage to someone’s reputation may lead to ten years in prison or a fine of up to KSh 5 million. Similarly, engaging in unauthorized SIM card swapping carries penalties of up to KSh 200,000 or two years in prison, and cyber espionage accessing data for the benefit of a foreign state can attract up to 20 years imprisonment or a KSh 10 million fine.
While Supporters of the law argue that these measures will help make Kenya’s digital space safer and more accountable, especially given the rise in online scams, impersonation, and harmful content, the provisions remain vague and open to misuse. Terms like “false information”, “cyber harassment”, and “promoting illegal activities” are not clearly defined, leaving room for broad interpretation by authorities. This ambiguity, they argue, could result in the criminalization of legitimate speech, satire, or public criticism echoing the controversies that surrounded the original 2018 Cybercrimes Act.
In addition, the law expands the powers of the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4), allowing it to direct the blocking of websites or applications deemed to promote illegal activities. This process lacks judicial oversight and could be used to silence dissenting voices, independent media, or whistleblowers. If implemented without transparency, these powers risk introducing a form of digital censorship, undermining the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 33 and the right to privacy under Article 31 of the Constitution.
The heavy penalties attached to speech-related offences also raise concerns of self-censorship. Journalists, bloggers, and activists may avoid discussing sensitive issues particularly those critical of government or powerful institutions out of fear of prosecution. This environment could stifle the vibrant online discourse that has made Kenya a leader in digital activism and civic engagement across Africa.
While the intent to protect citizens from online harm is commendable, the enforcement mechanisms must align with the principles of proportionality, accountability, and due process. Overly harsh sanctions for low-level offences and overlapping enforcement mandates undermine trust in the justice system and stifle digital rights
At a time when freedom of expression and access to information are central to civic participation, the law raises important questions: Who decides what constitutes “false information”? How will online content be monitored and enforced? And what safeguards exist to prevent misuse by authorities?