Court again halts enforcement of controversial Cybercrime Law after LSK petition

The Law Society of Kenya (LSK) has secured interim court orders suspending enforcement of crucial sections of the Cybercrime law just hours after President William Ruto signed it into law.

Justice Lawrence Mugambi of the Milimani High Court for the second time issued interim conservatory orders halting the implementation of Section 27(1)(b), (c), and (2) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, pending the hearing of a petition lodged by Law Society of Kenya (LSK).

 “Pending the hearing and determination of this application, a conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the enforcement, implementation and operation of Section 27(1)(b), (c) and (2) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025,” Justice Mugambi ordered.

The order comes barely hours after activist Reuben Kigame and the Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) secured a similar suspension in a separate case, deepening the legal scrutiny surrounding the law that was signed under a cloud of secrecy by President Ruto on Wednesday last week.

The LSK’s petition accuses President Ruto of secretly assenting to the law on October 15, 2025, just hours after the nation was plunged into mourning following the sudden death of former Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

“The timing was suspicious and deliberate,” argued LSK CEO Florence Muturi, who swore the supporting affidavit on behalf of the LSK suit.

“While the country was grieving, the President quietly signed into law provisions that criminalize online speech and open the door to censorship.”

The case pits the LSK against the Attorney-General, the Cabinet Secretary for Information, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK), and the Inspector-General of Police.

According to court papers by LSK’s lawyer  Benjamin Bogongo, the contested sections introduce new criminal liabilities that are broad, imprecise, and unconstitutional.

One of the amendments, Section 27(1)(b), now criminalizes any publication of false or misleading information that “is likely to cause another person to commit suicide.”

The lawyers' lobby group argues that this provision is vague and speculative, and therefore violates the principle of legality under the Constitution.

“The phrase ‘likely to cause them to commit suicide’ lacks clear legal parameters and is impossible to measure objectively,” Bogongo states.

“This transforms a deeply complex psychological question into a criminal offence and exposes ordinary citizens to arbitrary prosecution.”

The LSK further takes issue with Section 27(1)(c), which penalizes any digital communication deemed “grossly offensive” and that “affects the person.”

Under Section 27(2), offenders face a fine of up to Sh20 million or a jail term of up to ten years, or both.

 “Such draconian penalties are disproportionate,” Lawyer Bogongo said.

“They are being imposed on vague offences that could easily capture satire, criticism, or online debate,  the very essence of democracy.”

The petition warns that the vague wording could easily be abused by law enforcement and state officials to muzzle dissent, silence critics, and intimidate journalists and activists online.

At the heart of the case is Article 33 of the Kenyan Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic governance.

The LSK contends that the new cybercrime amendments are a direct assault on this right and risk producing a “chilling effect” across digital platforms.

“People are already self-censoring,” said CEO Muturi. 

“The fear of arrest or prosecution under such an ambiguous law undermines public participation, media freedom, and political discourse.”

In a separate petition, Justice Mugambi on Wednesday suspended the same provisions following an application by activist Kigame and KHRC, who argued that the law threatened constitutional liberties and amounted to “state overreach.”

The judge ordered LSK to serve the AG, National Assembly, Commination Authority of Kenya, and others respondents with the application and petition within three days. 

The court granted the respondents three days to file their responses ahead of the hearing of the case on November 5,2025.