The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has petitioned the Supreme Court of Kenya, challenging a Court of Appeal ruling that struck down Sections 22 and 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act on March 6.
Those two sections criminalised the publication of false or misleading information online. The drafting was so loose it could have ensnared a satirist, a blogger who made an honest factual error, or a journalist whose source turned out to be wrong.
The Bloggers Association of Kenya, which first challenged the law in 2018, argued precisely this. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal agreed. A three-judge bench went further, describing the provisions as so broad and untargeted that they resembled unguided missiles, likely to catch innocent citizens in their net.
What the ODPP wants
The ODPP wants the Supreme Court to overturn the appellate decision and restore both sections. It frames the petition as fulfilling its constitutional mandate in the public interest.
DPP moves to Supreme Court to challenge Court of Appeal Ruling on Cybercrime Law.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Kenya challenging the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered on 6th March…
— Office of The Director Of Public Prosecutions (@ODPP_KE) April 14, 2026
The public interest is not served by laws that punish speech the constitution explicitly protects under Articles 33 and 34. It is not served by provisions so vague that the boundary between criminal misinformation and vigorous, imperfect commentary becomes impossible to locate. Two courts have now said as much, with considerable force.
Two sides pulling at once
The Bloggers Association of Kenya has also signalled partial dissatisfaction with the Court of Appeal ruling. Civil society groups, including Article 19 East Africa, the Kenya Union of Journalists, and the Law Society of Kenya, share that dissatisfaction, though their grievance runs in the opposite direction. They believe the appellate court did not go far enough in protecting digital freedoms under the broader cybercrime law.
The Supreme Court now faces a case pulled from two directions at once. The state wants the law tightened. Civil society wants it loosened further.
