Kigame, Maraga, and Human Rights Commission Challenge Controversial Cybercrime Law in Court

 

By Esther Namarome 

Renowned gospel artist and activist Ruben Kigame, former Chief Justice David Maraga, and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) have filed a constitutional petition challenging the recently enacted Cybercrime Act, arguing it threatens fundamental freedoms and democratic values.

The petition, lodged at the High Court on Monday, seeks the immediate suspension of the law's enforcement pending a full hearing. The petitioners argue that the new legislation infringes on constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, opinion, and privacy, and could be weaponized to suppress dissent and stifle online activism.

“The Cybercrime Act, in its current form, is overly broad, vaguely worded, and opens the door for abuse by state agencies,” said Kigame, who has long advocated for digital rights and transparency in governance. “It undermines the spirit of the Constitution and puts a chill on free speech.”

The petition comes just a week after President William Ruto signed the bill into law, sparking immediate backlash from civil society organizations, media groups, and opposition leaders, who say the law represents a dangerous step toward digital authoritarianism.

Former Chief Justice Maraga, a respected legal voice and outspoken defender of constitutionalism, did not mince words in his criticism. He described the new law as a “mockery of the current constitutional order,” warning that it sets a worrying precedent for government overreach in the digital space.

“This law does not enhance cybersecurity—it enhances state control over what citizens can say, post, or share online,” Maraga said during a press briefing. “Kenya has made significant democratic strides, and we must not reverse them in the name of order or national security.”

In their petition, the KNCHR and its co-petitioners also raised alarm over specific provisions that they say could lead to arbitrary arrests and the criminalization of legitimate online expression, particularly among journalists, bloggers, and political activists.

The case also touches on broader concerns regarding other recent legislative moves by the government. Maraga separately criticized the Privatization Bill, recently passed by Parliament, warning that it could facilitate the secret and possibly corrupt transfer of public assets to politically connected individuals. He specifically questioned the government’s plan to sell the Kenya Pipeline Company, citing the absence of financial distress as justification.

“There’s no economic rationale here. The company is solvent. This is a national asset, and the public deserves transparency in any plans to divest it,” Maraga noted.

As the matter heads to court, the judiciary now faces a crucial test: whether it will uphold constitutional protections in the digital era or side with the government’s position that the new law is necessary to combat cybercrime and digital misinformation.

Legal analysts say the outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for online freedoms in Kenya, especially as more citizens turn to digital platforms for political engagement and activism.

The High Court is expected to schedule a preliminary hearing in the coming days. Meanwhile, digital rights advocates are calling for public vigilance and sustained pressure to ensure that any laws governing cyberspace respect the Constitution and human rights.