The Kenyan government’s proposed Computer Misuse and Cybercrime (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has sparked widespread concern among civil society organizations and digital rights advocates.
The bill, sponsored by Wajir East MP Aden Daudi, aims to strengthen existing legislation by introducing new sections targeting offences linked to digital platforms.
While the bill seeks to deter misuse of social media by introducing penalties for acts such as identity theft, SIM-card fraud, and promoting illegal activities, critics argue that its provisions could be used to stifle free speech and undermine democratic principles.
NC4 granted broad powers to block websites and applications
One of the most contentious clauses in the bill grants the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4) the power to block websites and applications that are deemed to promote illegal activities, child pornography, terrorism, or extreme religious and cultic practices.
“The overly broad, ambiguous and vague language of the amendment, such as “where it proved”, “promotes illegal activities” or “extreme religious and cultic practices” are bad in law. Despite stating that it does not limit fundamental rights and freedoms, the bill proceeds to violate constitutional and human rights standards around rights to freedom of expression, political participation, privacy and related civil liberties,” says Mr Victor Kapiyo, Advocate at Lawmark Partners and Trustee at KICTANet.
The bill’s provisions could have significant implications for how Kenyans use social media and digital platforms, holding users accountable for the content they share and the activities they engage in online.
However, critics argue that the bill’s language is overly broad and could be used to justify censorship of political dissent, religious expression, or other forms of legitimate speech.
“The implementation of the provision could lead to censorship of legitimate speech, including political dissent or religious expression. It may also pave the way for arbitrary blocking of websites and applications or invasive surveillance practices, particularly during politically sensitive times like protests and elections, if the events following the #RejectFinanceBill2024 are anything to go by,” he adds.
Furthermore, the lack of clear oversight mechanisms and due process guarantees raises concerns about the potential for abuse of power by the NC4. The bill’s provisions could be used to justify invasive surveillance practices, particularly during politically sensitive times like protests and elections.
“Ok so we are going here now are we… 2024 Amendment to the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Act, grants NC4 new powers to issue demands to block (render inaccessible within the country) websites. This surely is a Slippery slope to unfettered web censorship,” says Ben Roberts, the former Group Chief Technology and Innovation Officer at Liquid Intelligent Technologies on X.
“It is a mere trojan horse to give censorship powers to NC4. Its mandate is to protect the country from Cyber attacks, and not to deal with content matters. There are protocols and collaborations with international agencies to deal with such crimes.”
Human rights bodies insist on clear safeguards to prevent abuse of power
The adoption of the bill in its current form could have significant economic consequences for Kenya’s digital ecosystem. It could create uncertainty and increase costs for developers, users, and investors. The broad nature of the proposed restrictions could also hurt Kenya’s global reputation as a favourable ICT investment destination.
Civil society organizations have expressed concerns about the intensification of digital authoritarianism and declining democratic governance in Kenya.
The proposed bill, if passed, could further erode these democratic principles and have a chilling effect on free speech.
It is important to note that while combating illegal activities like terrorism and child sexual abuse material is legitimate, these concerns should not be used to justify sweeping censorship and surveillance. Human rights bodies insist that such laws must comply with international standards and have clear safeguards to prevent abuse, such as independent judicial oversight.
