By Sam Alfan.
Nairobi, Kenya — A city lawyer has moved to court to challenge sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, arguing that the new law threatens fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and religious rights.
In a constitutional petition filed at the High Court, lawyer Ndong Evance wants Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Amendment Act declared unconstitutional, claiming they contain vague and overly broad language that could enable arbitrary arrests and prosecution of innocent Kenyans — including preachers sharing online sermons.
Evance specifically takes issue with a new provision, Section 6(1)(ja), which empowers the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to determine what constitutes “religious extremism and cultism.”
He argues that the section violates Articles 24, 32, 33, 47, and 50 of the Constitution by introducing unclear terminology and granting excessive discretionary powers to the state.
“The terms ‘religious extremism and cultism’ are undefined, overly broad, and impermissibly vague,” Evance says in his petition. “Such uncertainty offends the principle of legal certainty, which requires that citizens know with reasonable clarity what conduct is prohibited.”
Under the contested provision, the Committee may issue directives to block or take down websites or digital platforms deemed to promote “unlawful activities, inappropriate sexual content involving minors, terrorism, or religious extremism and cultism.”
Evance contends that while regulating child pornography or terrorism-related content falls within constitutional limits, the undefined references to “religious extremism and cultism” could be misused to silence legitimate religious expression.
“Leaving the meaning of ‘religious extremism and cultism’ to the whims of the state opens a dangerous window for censorship of legitimate religious speech,” he argues. “This threatens mainstream churches and other faiths, posing a danger to Kenya’s democratic space.”
The lawyer also challenges Section 6 of the Amendment Act, which introduces Section 46A to the principal law, saying it is “vague and overly ambiguous.” He argues that it grants the courts and the Committee sweeping powers to impose sanctions on persons convicted of offences “related to religious extremism or cultism,” without clearly defining those offences.
Evance says the Amendment Act usurps the constitutional mandates of established institutions such as the National Police Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions, which are constitutionally mandated to handle investigations and prosecutions of criminal conduct.
“Censorship and regulation of online content are not the mandate of the Committee,” Evance asserts. “The Amendment Act merges investigative, adjudicative, and enforcement powers into one executive body, contrary to Articles 1, 2, 10, 47, 50, 159, and 165 of the Constitution.”
He further wants the court to declare that the Committee has no lawful authority to bring down websites or digital platforms without giving affected parties a fair hearing, in line with Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution.
Evance maintains that the current legal framework already provides sufficient safeguards against unlawful activities conducted under the guise of religion, and that the Amendment Act’s new provisions amount to unconstitutional overreach.
The petition is expected to reignite debate over the balance between national security, online regulation, and constitutional freedoms, especially in Kenya’s expanding digital space.
