The Kenyan government spent the better part of a year holding a switch that could shut down any website it decided was hosting the wrong kind of content. A court just took that switch away.
The High Court struck down a key provision of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, in a judgment delivered on July 2 by Justice Patricia Nyaundi. The section in question, 6(1)(j)(a), had let the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee, known as NC4, order internet providers to block websites and apps it deemed connected to terrorism, extremism, or other unlawful activity. No judge needed to sign off first.
The Argument That Won
On paper, the power sounds hard to object to. Blocking sites tied to terrorism or child exploitation is the kind of thing most people support in principle. The court’s problem wasn’t the goal. It was the process.
Justice Nyaundi found that letting a government-appointed committee decide what counts as illegal content, and then pull the plug on it without any judicial check, amounted to censorship with no real safeguard against abuse. A body that answers to the executive branch was being handed the power to silence speech unilaterally, and the court ruled that violates constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression, media freedom, and freedom of religion.
The court also struck down a second provision, one that had criminalised communication “likely to cause” another person to attempt suicide. Judges found the wording too vague to meet the bar criminal law is supposed to clear. If people can’t reasonably tell in advance what speech crosses the line, the law can’t fairly punish them for crossing it.
This Fight Has Been Going On For a While
The ruling didn’t come out of nowhere. The underlying case dates back to petitions filed shortly after the amendment was signed into law in October 2025, brought by figures including Kirinyaga Woman Representative Njeri Maina and Kenya Human Rights Commission. A separate judge had already temporarily suspended enforcement of parts of the law back in October, while the constitutional challenge worked its way through court.
Not every argument against the law succeeded. The court rejected claims that Parliament rushed the amendment through without adequate public input, finding lawmakers did give citizens a genuine chance to weigh in before the bill passed. It also dismissed the argument that the Senate should have been involved, ruling the legislation didn’t touch county government matters. So this was a partial win, not a wholesale takedown. The specific power to block first and explain later is what’s gone. The rest of the law stands.
Why the Timing Matters
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Kenya has a recent history of internet restrictions during moments of political tension, including accusations that the Communications Authority throttled connectivity during the 2024 Finance Bill protests despite denying any intent to restrict access. Digital rights groups have been watching for exactly this kind of unchecked executive power ever since, and this ruling gives them a concrete legal win to point to.
It also isn’t the last round. The Supreme Court is separately set to hear a challenge to the original 2018 Cybercrimes Act, this time over provisions letting state agencies intercept phone calls, emails, and other communications through court-authorised surveillance orders. That case, brought by the Bloggers Association of Kenya, the Law Society of Kenya, Article 19 Eastern Africa, and the Kenya Union of Journalists, tackles a different piece of the same underlying tension: how much power the state gets over what Kenyans say and see online, and how much of that power has to run through a judge first.
For now, the answer on website blocking is clear. If the government wants a site taken down, it needs a court order to do it, the same as anyone else.