Dr. Reuben Kigame Challenges Flawed Passage of Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024

  

A fresh legal battle has emerged over the controversial Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, after Dr. Reuben Kigame filed a constitutional petition challenging its validity on grounds of flawed public participation and legislative irregularities.

Conservatory orders halting the implementation of the Act were issued on October 22, 2025, just a day after the petition was filed, pending a full hearing. The move has reignited national debate on transparency, inclusivity, and accountability in Kenya’s lawmaking process.

In a strongly worded statement, Kigame’s team described the law as a product of a “deeply compromised parliamentary process” and accused Parliament of rushing the Bill through without meaningful consultation of key stakeholders.

“Despite the severe penalties contained in the Bill, the manner in which it was processed raises serious questions about transparency, public participation, and legislative integrity,” the statement read.

The Bill, sponsored by Wajir East MP Aden Daudi Mohamed, was introduced in November 2024 and referred to the Departmental Committee on Communication, Information, and Innovation for review. Critics argue that this move effectively excluded public scrutiny, since committee sessions are not open to the public.

According to Kigame, the Committee’s claim of conducting public participation through a newspaper notice on February 18, 2025, was insufficient and non-transparent. The report failed to disclose who participated, what views were received, or how they were addressed. Only three stakeholders—the Ministry of Information, Communication and Digital Economy, KICTANet, and the Kenya Alliance of Residents Associations (KARA)—submitted their views.

Analysts have questioned the narrow selection of contributors, given the Bill’s wide-ranging implications for online expression, media freedom, and religious discourse.

“The absence of journalists, bloggers, religious organisations, and digital creators shows either intentional exclusion or gross negligence,” said Kigame, calling the process “a betrayal of participatory democracy.”

Of the three groups that made submissions, KICTANet was the only one to oppose the amendments, warning that vague provisions—such as the clause criminalising content “likely to cause suicide”—could enable arbitrary censorship and abuse of power. Their objections were ultimately ignored in the final draft.

Meanwhile, KARA’s endorsement of the Bill raised further controversy, with critics questioning its relevance to a law governing online behaviour.

Neither MP Aden Daudi nor Dagoretti South MP John Kiarie, who chairs the Committee, has publicly addressed the growing concerns.

Dr. Kigame argues that the entire process violated Article 10 and Article 118 of the Constitution, which require public participation and transparency in legislative processes. His legal team now seeks to have the amendments declared unconstitutional.

The petition also highlights a growing unease among civil society groups over what they describe as a shrinking civic space and a trend of rushed lawmaking that sidelines citizen input.

“If this is the standard of lawmaking in Kenya today, then our democracy rests on a very fragile foundation,” Kigame warned.

The case is expected to set a major precedent on the scope and adequacy of public participation in Kenya’s legislative process—an issue that has repeatedly drawn judicial scrutiny in recent years.