The High Court has handed Kenyans a major win for digital freedom after suspending key sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024 that allowed the government to shut down social media platforms and block websites. Justice Lawrence Mugambi ruled that the disputed provisions will remain suspended until the ongoing petitions challenging their legality are fully heard and determined. This ruling marks a crucial step in protecting free speech and digital expression while the court reviews the constitutionality of the controversial Cybercrimes Act. Justice Mugambi’s ruling offers a crucial shield for Kenya’s digital freedom, ensuring online spaces remain open and accessible while courts examine whether the Cybercrimes Act complies with the Constitution. High Court Suspends Controversial Sections of Cybercrimes Act Justice Lawrence Mugambi’s ruling on Thursday temporarily halted the enforcement of Sections 27(1)(b) and 6 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act 2024. These provisions granted the government power to close social media platforms and block websites or mobile applications accused of promoting unlawful content.
The judge clarified that the suspension will remain in effect until six consolidated petitions filed against the Act are resolved. “Following the parties’ agreement, the court adopts the same as a consent order and allows the suspension of Sections 6 and 27 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act pending hearing and determination of this case,” Mugambi ruled.
Section 6(1)(j)(a), one of the suspended clauses, had sparked concern among digital rights groups. It allowed the state to block platforms accused of hosting obscene or intimidating material, particularly those involving minors. Critics argued that the vague language in the law opened doors for government overreach and censorship under the guise of morality and national security. Justice Mugambi’s Decision Protects Social Media Freedom Justice Mugambi emphasized that social media platforms will remain operational until the court determines whether the law violates constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression and access to information. He stated that the government must not interfere with digital communication channels until the court concludes the matter.
The decision came after the Attorney General, the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), Members of Parliament, and the petitioners agreed to limit the previous court orders that had suspended the entire Act. The original suspension, issued on October 22, had halted enforcement of all amendments, a move that the state argued was too broad.
“The court recognizes the importance of digital platforms in fostering communication, business, and civic engagement,” Justice Mugambi noted. “Any restriction must pass the test of legality, necessity, and proportionality.” State and Petitioners Clash Over Scope of Suspension Attorney General’s lawyer Paul Nyamodi told the court that the government had reached a consensus with other parties to narrow the suspension to only two contentious sections. “After consultations with all parties, we have agreed to amend the earlier orders and suspend only two sections of the Cybercrimes Act until the case is heard and determined,” Nyamodi said.
On the other hand, Patrick Lutta, representing the Communications Authority, argued that the initial suspension had disrupted enforcement of provisions that help maintain online safety and combat digital crime. He said the state needed to continue enforcing other sections to address issues like online fraud, cyberbullying, and data theft.
The original suspension stemmed from petitions by gospel artist Reuben Kigame and Kirinyaga Woman Representative Jane Njeri. They argued that the amendments signed by President William Ruto on October 15, 2025, violated constitutional freedoms by allowing the government to arbitrarily restrict digital platforms and penalize online expression. Petitioners Warn of Threats to Digital Rights Petitioners and rights groups welcomed the court’s latest ruling, terming it a temporary safeguard against state censorship. They maintained that the contested provisions posed a real threat to journalists, bloggers, and content creators who rely on digital platforms to express opinions and share information.
Section 27 of the law, now under suspension, criminalizes online communication that could lead a recipient to self-harm or suicide. Critics argued that while the clause aimed to curb cyber harassment, its broad wording could criminalize legitimate criticism or opinionated posts.
Legal experts say the suspension will allow time for a deeper constitutional review of the Act’s implications on free speech. “This case is a test of how far the state can go in regulating online spaces without violating fundamental rights,” said a Nairobi-based lawyer following the case.
For now, the court’s order means Kenyans can continue using platforms like X (Twitter), Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube without fear of sudden government shutdowns.