Parliament Moves to Restore Government Powers to Shut Down Websites

The Parliament of Kenya has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge a recent High Court decision that struck down two key provisions of the controversial cybercrime law. This legal step signals a confrontation between the legislature and the judiciary over internet regulation.

According to a notice of appeal filed by the lawmakers, the National Assembly, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and Parliament itself intend to fight the entire judgment delivered on July 2, 2026. The legislative bodies were listed as the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents in the original case.

Justice Patricia Nyaundi delivered the contested ruling, which nullified sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Milimani High Court found that these clauses failed to meet constitutional standards. The state has expressed deep dissatisfaction with both the judgment and the resulting decree.

The legislative arm wants the decision completely overturned. This move seeks to reinstate mechanisms that the high court described as unchecked administrative censorship.

At the heart of the legal dispute is Section 6(1)(jA) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. This specific provision granted the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4) sweeping authority to order the blocking of websites and digital applications.

Under that nullified section, the administrative committee could instruct internet service providers to make platforms inaccessible without obtaining a prior court order. The government had argued this was necessary to curb unlawful digital activities, including terrorism, religious extremism, cultism, and child sexual exploitation.

However, Justice Nyaundi ruled that allowing an administrative body to block content without judicial oversight violated fundamental constitutional safeguards. The court emphasized that the state cannot arbitrarily stifle the right to free speech, if it wishes to uphold the democratic tenets of the nation.

Legal analysts note that prior restraint on digital communication requires strict justification under Article 24 of the Constitution of Kenya. The high court determined that the state failed to demonstrate how these sweeping powers met that rigorous constitutional threshold.

The second invalidated clause is Section 27(1)(b), which criminalised online communications deemed likely to cause another person to commit suicide. Conviction under this specific provision attracted severe penalties, although the court found its framework deeply flawed. It carried a maximum fine of twenty million shillings, or ten years of imprisonment.

The high court struck down the cyber-harassment clause for failing the constitutional principle of legality. Justice Nyaundi observed that the wording was overly broad, but it also relied on highly speculative and subjective criteria that could ensnare innocent citizens.

The original constitutional petition challenging the amendments was filed by Kirinyaga Woman Representative Jane Njeri Maina alongside several other digital rights defenders. The petitioners successfully argued that the legislative changes severely threatened the digital civic space.

The ruling followed earlier legal battles, including a conservatory order issued in October 2025 by the High Court that temporarily suspended several aspects of the same law. That earlier case involved separate petitions by civil society actors, who expressed similar concerns.

The legal battle now moves to the appellate bench, where the state will attempt to defend its legislative framework for national cybersecurity. Digital rights organizations are watching closely, because the outcome will permanently shape the limits of state control over the digital sphere in East Africa.