Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

New law could reverse gains

Cybercrime

As it stands, the Computer Misuse Act prescribes shockingly harsh penalties.

Photo credit: Pool

When President William Ruto signed eight Bills into law earlier this month, one stood out and immediately captured the attention of Kenyans: the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024.

Touted as a necessary step toward protecting citizens from digital fraud, online harassment, and cyberterrorism, the law promises to strengthen Kenya’s cybersecurity framework. Yet beneath the surface lies a deeper debate: is this law safeguarding citizens, or tightening State control over the digital space?

Kenya has made huge strides in the digital world. From mobile banking and online shopping to social activism, the internet has become a powerful engine for connection, expression, and accountability.

But with that progress has come an undeniable rise in cyber threats: phishing scams, data breaches, impersonation, and cyber-bullying. The need to update the old 2018 cybercrime law was, therefore, valid and long overdue.

In a society where online expression has become a vital form of civic participation, the risk of criminalising dissent or satire cannot be ignored. If ordinary Kenyans begin to fear that a tweet, post, or blog could land them in trouble for being “likely to incite,” public discourse will inevitably shrink. And when free expression shrinks, accountability fades.

The new law expands the definition of cybercrime and gives authorities the power to block websites or remove online content suspected of promoting illegal activity, even before a court ruling.

It also compels service providers to share user data in investigations. The government says this will curb scams and online extremism. But critics warn it could be used to silence dissent, intimidate journalists, or stifle activism.

The Constitution protects free expression and privacy. Handing broad powers to “authorised officers” without strict judicial oversight threatens those very freedoms. As former Chief Justice David Maraga noted, such unchecked authority risks reversing hard-won democratic gains.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.

Ms Murugi is a writer and media practitioner. [email protected]