Kenya’s High Court has stripped a government committee of its power to block websites without a judge’s sign off, and thrown out a criminal offence that rights groups warned could jail people for online speech based on nothing more than speculation.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi delivered the ruling on 2 July 2026 at the Milimani High Court, resolving six consolidated petitions filed against the Attorney General, the Communications Authority, and other state respondents. The Law Society of Kenya led the case as the lead petitioner, with other petitioners including sitting MP Babu Owino. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and Katiba Institute joined as interested parties supporting the challenge, alongside a data protection expert brought in to clarify technical questions about the law’s scope.
The Kenya Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya), ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa, and the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), backed by Amnesty International Kenya, welcomed the ruling as a win for digital rights, describing themselves as petitioners in the case in a joint statement issued the same day.
A Committee Loses Its Blocking Power
The judgment struck down Section 6(1)(ja) of the amended law, which had let the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee, known as NC4, order internet providers to disable access to any website or application it decided promoted “unlawful activities,” “religious extremism,” or “cultism.” No court ever had to review that decision first.
Justice Nyaundi found this handed an administrative body a power that belongs to the judiciary. Her judgment goes further than a general finding of overreach: it points to a provision already built into the same law, Section 46A, which lets a court order a website taken down after a conviction, or lets an authorised officer apply to a court for a takedown order. NC4’s power under Section 6(1)(ja) skipped that entire process. The state argued that the word “proved” in the provision implied judicial involvement. The judge rejected that reading outright.
ICJ Kenya’s chairperson, Christine Alai, framed the outcome as a matter of principle rather than just procedure. “This ruling is a resounding affirmation of freedom to seek, receive and impart information online,” she said. “The Court has rightly held that the power to restrict access to online content must be subject to judicial oversight and cannot be left to an administrative body.”
ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa’s acting regional director, Patrick Mutahi, echoed that reading of the judgment’s significance. “Today’s judgment is a victory for the digital rights of all Kenyans,” he said. “The Court has sent a clear message that vague and overly broad provisions that criminalise speech based on speculative standards have no place in our legal framework.”
A Vague Suicide Provision Falls
The Court also struck down Section 27(1)(b), which had made it a crime to communicate in a way “likely” to cause someone to commit suicide, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Justice Nyaundi found the standard impossible to apply with any certainty, since it rested on speculation about another person’s future state of mind rather than any provable fact. She drew on language the Court of Appeal used in a related 2026 ruling on the law’s earlier provisions, which described similarly worded offences as “unguided missiles” likely to “net innocent citizens,” including people who forward information online without reading it first.
BAKE chairperson Kennedy Kachwanya connected the ruling to a broader question about what the internet is for. “This judgment restores our confidence in the judiciary and affirms that the internet is a space for free expression, not for censorship,” he said. “We will continue to fight for a digital environment that is open, inclusive, and respectful of fundamental rights.”
What the Ruling Does Not Touch
The judgment is narrower than the coalition’s celebration might suggest, and that distinction matters for anyone tracking what changes on the ground.
Petitioners had also asked the Court to revisit older provisions from the original 2018 Act, provisions a 2020 High Court ruling and a 2026 Court of Appeal decision had already upheld. Justice Nyaundi dismissed those prayers as res judicata, meaning the matter had already been finally settled and could not be relitigated. A separate argument, that Parliament needed Senate approval because the amendment touched on county government functions, also failed, following a 2025 Supreme Court finding on the same underlying Act. A claim that Parliament rushed the amendment through without genuine public participation failed too, after the state produced a parliamentary committee report and Hansard record showing the bill went through public comment before passage.
Where Things Stand Now
The Court declared Section 6(1)(ja) and Section 27(1)(b) unconstitutional and of no legal effect, with each party bearing its own costs.
NC4 can no longer block websites on its own authority. Any future takedown will need to go through a court, either after a conviction or through an application by an authorised officer under Section 46A, the mechanism Justice Nyaundi pointed to as the constitutionally sound alternative. The suicide-related speech offence is gone entirely, narrowing what online communication can trigger criminal liability in Kenya. The rest of the 2025 amendment, and the bulk of the original 2018 Act, remains in force. The petitioning organisations say they intend to keep pressing for reforms that bring the rest of the law in line with constitutional protections.
8 word SEO headline:
Meta description:
SEO key phrase: Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act unconstitutional Kenya
Slug: kenya-high-court-cybercrimes-act-nc4-website-blocking-unconstitutional
