It often begins with a post—sharp criticism of government, a viral video alleging corruption, or a hashtag questioning authority.
In Murang’a County, that digital expression is now at the centre of a widening confrontation between security agencies and online voices accused of crossing legal and ethical lines.
On Tuesday, the county’s Security and Intelligence Committee confirmed a crackdown targeting bloggers accused of publishing what officials termed “injurious and unsubstantiated” content online.
County Police Commander Cleti Kimaiyo said several bloggers are being sought to record statements, warning that those who fail to comply will be pursued.
“We have reached out to some of them to appear before us and substantiate their posts; failure to do so, we will hunt them down,” he said.
The operation has already triggered a political and legal backlash even before summonses are fully issued.
Senator Joe Nyutu condemned the move, terming it an attempt to silence government critics and stifle dissent. He described it as “yet another dictatorial crackdown on those who do not support President William Ruto’s administration.”
Murang'a Senator Joe Nyutu.
Photo credit: Lucy Wanjiru | Nation Media Group
“I have advised them that where freedom of expression is deemed injurious, the Defamation Act provides remedies. What is happening is the weaponisation of the criminal justice system to kill political dissent,” he said.
Advocate of the High Court James Muna said he had reviewed some of the contested online content and found it politically charged rather than criminal.
He said much of it revolves around the “Wantam” slogan, youth mobilisation messages, criticism of police corruption, allegations of land grabbing, and attacks on the liquor industry.
“I would advise any blogger summoned on grounds of defamation to ignore such summons. Defamation is a civil matter. It begins with a demand for justification or a retraction, not a police summons,” he said.
Among those caught in the standoff is Mixson Warui, 28, an aspiring politician from Kamahuha Ward.
Warui said he was contacted by security officials and instructed to report to county headquarters over his online posts.
“He told me to go and record a statement. I refused. I see no reason to finance my own trip so I can be arrested. If they want me, they should come and arrest me,” he said.
“I have also received calls from someone claiming to be part of an abduction squad. He told me to prepare for prison or worse,” he said.
Joseph Munyoro said the crackdown reflects a broader contradiction in how political expression is treated online.
“Government bloggers are everywhere online trolling opposition leaders, yet nothing is done. But critics are being summoned,” he said.
“Instead of threats and arrests, the state should address the issues they are raising,” he said.
Concerns over intimidation were also raised by Manoah Gachucha, who said the crackdown had been ongoing for nearly 19 months. He linked the climate of fear to past incidents, including the death of 28-year-old Dennis Mwangi, an orphan who reportedly died following an alleged abduction in late 2024. Mwangi was later found dead in a mortuary on January 31, 2025.
“Support for government should be earned through persuasion, not force,” he said.
'Peddling of unfounded claims'
Security officials, however, insist the action is necessary to curb misinformation and harmful narratives. Former deputy county commissioner Gitonga Murungi previously warned against what he termed the “peddling of unfounded claims” on security matters.
“We will not allow people to wake up and start spreading falsehoods. Some individuals were summoned to police stations to explain their statements,” he said.
His remarks followed the arrest of several youths in Maragua over alleged online and media comments on insecurity.
Human rights lawyers say the crackdown raises constitutional questions on freedom of expression. Advocate Timothy Kariuki said some provisions being relied on by security officers were already nullified by the Court of Appeal in 2023.
He said Sections 22 and 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, which criminalised “false, misleading or fictitious information,” were struck down for being overly broad and vague.
“The law is clear. You cannot criminalise expression simply because it is uncomfortable to the state,” he said.
