A recent revelation by a digital rights advocate has confirmed forensic evidence showing that the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI-Kenya) illegally installed FlexiSpy, a commercial spyware tool, on devices of the four filmmakers arrested over the BBC blood parliament expose which explored the role of state security forces during the June 2024 protests.
Earlier this year, the filmmakers , Nicholas Wambugu Gichuki, Bryan Adagala, Mark Denver Karubiu, and Chris Wamae alleged that their devices had been secretly tampered with and fitted with spyware while in police custody. The Judiciary allowed them to submit an expert forensic report and supporting evidence, marking a significant milestone in an unfolding case that exposes troubling patterns of digital surveillance and privacy violations in Kenya.
Subsequent forensic investigations revealed traces of FlexiSpy software the filmmakers’ phones. The spyware, known for its ability to intercept calls, access messages, track location, and remotely activate microphones, had allegedly been installed while the devices were still in the possession of the DCI. Though the DCI denied the allegations, claiming that the searches were done under valid warrants, the incident raised serious questions about privacy, press freedom, and state accountability.
Now, the new forensic evidence announced in September adds weight to those concerns. It indicates that the filmmakers’ experience was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of unlawful surveillance targeting citizens and content creators. The complainants believe their devices were compromised . Their case, backed by forensic analysis from Intruvent Technologies and Citizen Lab, seeks to expose how such invasive surveillance may have been conducted under the guise of digital investigations.
If proven true, these actions would constitute a clear violation of Article 31 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy, and the Data Protection Act (2019), which prohibits the unauthorized access, processing, or sharing of personal data. FlexiSpy’s use by a government agency without legal authorization would not only breach these laws but also set a dangerous precedent for digital freedoms in Kenya.
The case highlights a growing concern among human rights and digital advocacy groups: the unchecked use of surveillance technology by state agencies. With advanced spyware tools now readily available, there is an urgent need to strengthen oversight mechanisms, ensure transparency in investigations, and protect citizens’ devices from unauthorized tampering.
Beyond the legal implications, the psychological and civic impact is equally profound. Surveillance has a chilling effect on free expression particularly for journalists, activists, and filmmakers whose work challenges authority or exposes wrongdoing. When creators fear that their communications are being monitored or their devices compromised, it discourages investigative storytelling and silences critical voices.
The court’s decision to grant leave for the forensic report marks an important step toward accountability. It opens a path for evidence-based inquiry into the misuse of surveillance tools and could set a legal precedent for future digital rights cases in Kenya. It also signals a recognition by the judiciary that digital forensics and expert testimony are vital in addressing emerging forms of privacy violations.