The Kenyan Court on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018, ruling that the law was valid in its entirety.
According to the court, the decision of Judge James Makau has made the petition immaterial stating that the 26 sections of the computer misuse and cybercrimes law that had been contested ‘were valid and does not interfere with freedom of expression and are justified under Article 24 of the Constitution’. The chapter speaks of the limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) sued the Attorney-General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Inspector-General of Police and the Director of Public Prosecution over the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act 2018.
Demas Kiprono, Constitutional & Human Rights Lawyer at Amnesty International Kenya on behalf of BAKE said they will appeal the ruling.
“The court totally misunderstood this petition and thus, did not appreciate the issues raised.”
He said in as much as they appreciate the court decision, “I understand that digital rights issues are new and dynamic and (the court) had to appreciate and comprehend this is because they increasingly affect our daily lives in a digital age,” said Demas.
“It is now illegal to cyber squat. To own any domain bearing the name of a famous person or corporation with the hope that they will seek to purchase it from you in the future. As it stands, the Government now has the tools to stifle the online space that has allowed Kenyans to expose injustice, express themselves and hold leaders into account. From now on, be careful when you mention a leader for wrongdoing. The Directorate of Criminal Investigations might come for you! – Demas Kiprono.
This is good. The elements of proving the crime will ensure it is not abused. There must be a deliberate intention to spread the false information and knowledge that it is false.
— Mr.Murang'a (@Gitongamuranga) February 20, 2020
In this case, the Kenya Union of Journalists and Article 19 were listed as interested parties.
The petitioners had argued that Sections 3, 5, 16, 17,22,23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the Act deny, infringe and threaten freedom of expression, media, and persons besides the right to privacy, property and a fair hearing in a manner that is not justified under Article 24 of the Constitution.
BAKE in a statement said they went to court because they were concerned that several provisions of the new law were unconstitutional and constituted an infringement on fundamental freedoms.
“In our opinion, 26 sections of the law threatened the freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of the media, freedom, and security of the person, right to privacy, right to property and the right to a fair hearing.”
Currently, 26 sections of the Act remain suspended. They include Sections 5, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53. They touch on child pornography and its penalties, publishing of false information, fraudulent use of electronic data, interference with computer systems and data.
