Lawyer Seeks to Strike Down Cybercrime Bill Citing ‘Vague’ Religion Provisions

A legal petition has been filed at the High Court in Nairobi challenging proposed changes to Kenya’s cybercrime laws, citing concerns over religious freedom and digital rights.

The constitutional case targets the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Bill, 2024, sponsored by Wajir East MP Aden Daudi Mohamed. The Bill seeks to expand the powers of the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee (NC4), allowing it to block websites and mobile applications considered to promote terrorism, religious extremism, or cultic practices.

The NC4 is chaired by the Principal Secretary for Internal Security and includes representatives from the National Intelligence Service, Kenya Defence Forces, and the Office of the Attorney-General. According to the petition, filed by lawyer Evance Ndong, the Bill contains vague language that could allow the government to arbitrarily target religious groups and online content.

He argues that the proposed law does not define key terms such as “extreme religious and cultic practices,” giving the State broad and unchecked powers to determine what qualifies as harmful or unlawful.

“The danger is acute in that by leaving the meaning of ‘extreme’ to the whims of the State and its organs, the Bill hands unrestrained discretion to the State to silence legitimate religious expression and worship,” Ndong says in court documents.

The petition echoes concerns from civil society groups and digital rights advocates, who warn that the amendments could be used to suppress dissent and unfairly target minority faith communities. Critics argue that the proposed law could conflate unconventional beliefs with criminal conduct, in violation of constitutional protections for freedom of worship and expression.

Ndong also contends that Kenya’s current legal framework already contains sufficient provisions to address unlawful activities linked to religion or online content. He argues that the proposed amendments are unnecessary and amount to an unconstitutional expansion of State power.

“The Constitution cannot countenance an attempt to whimsically determine beliefs based on flip-flopping, non-existent criteria only known to the State on what amounts to a cult,” the petition reads.

While the government maintains that stronger cybercrime laws are needed to combat radicalisation and online threats, opponents of the Bill argue that the lack of clear definitions could undermine fundamental rights.