ARTICLE 19 welcomes the landmark decision by the Court of Appeal declaring section 22 and 23 of the Kenya Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act to be unconstitutional. The court agreed with ARTICLE 19’s submission as an interested party that the provisions were overly broad, were weaponised against government critics and human rights defenders and did not meet international standards on freedom of expression because they cause a chilling effect.
On 6 March 2026, the Court of Appeal of Kenya issued a decision on an appeal from the High Court challenging sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act. ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa was one of the Interested Parties in the case and made submissions urging the court to declare sections 27,22, and 23 of the Act as unconstitutional as they contravene international standards on freedom of expression.
Section 27 of the Act carries a maximum sentence of 20 million Kenyan shillings and 10 years’ imprisonment for cyber harassment. Section 22 of the Act provided for a maximum penalty of five million Kenyan shillings and imprisonment for two years for the publication of false information. Ssection 23 of the Act provides for a penalty of five million Kenyan shillings and imprisonment of up to 10 years for publication of false information that causes panic, chaos, or violence among citizens.
‘These provisions have a chilling effect of freedom of expression in the country and are a violation of Article 33 and 32 of the Constitution of Kenya, which safeguards freedom of expression and freedom of the media respectively. The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act has been weaponised against human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers, and citizens participating in public discourse, which is essential in an open and democratic society,’ said Dr. Patrick Mutahi, Deputy Regional Director ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa.
‘We welcome this progressive decision of the Court of Appeal in declaring sections 22 and 23 of the Act unconstitutional, which had criminalised publication of false information including criminal defamation. We call on the Office of Public Prosecutions to discharge any current ongoing prosecutions of the impugned provisions in compliance with this court decision,’ continued Dr. Patrick Mutahi.
ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa had previously successfully challenged criminal defamation provisions in section 194 of the Penal Code in Jacqueline Okuta & another v Attorney General & 2 others [2017] KEHC 8382 (KLR). We also successfully challenged section 29 of the Kenya Information and Communications Act on false publication of information in Andare v Attorney General & another; Article 19 – East Africa (Interested Party) [2016] KEHC 7592 (KLR).
Read the statement by ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa’s partners regarding the decision