The High Court has declared unconstitutional a key provision in the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025. The provision empowered a state committee to order internet service providers to block access to websites and online applications without seeking prior court approval.
In its ruling delivered on Thursday, the court held that Section 6(1)(j)(a) violates constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion, expression, and media freedom. The judges found that the provision gives broad censorship powers to an administrative body without sufficient safeguards.
The provision challenged before the court allowed the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to direct internet service providers to make inaccessible websites and applications it deemed to contain prohibited content linked to unlawful activities, terrorism, violent extremism, child sexual exploitation, or other specified offenses.
However, the court found that the amendment effectively allowed the committee to decide whether online content was offensive and to order its removal without judicial oversight.
“The amendment confers upon an administrative body a sweeping authority to impose prior restraint, the most severe form of censorship, in the absence of procedural safeguards and evidential thresholds,” Judge Patricia Mande held.
The court dismissed the respondents’ argument that courts could implicitly oversee the process. It noted that Parliament had already amended the Act to add a separate enforcement mechanism that included court supervision.
The judge said the new provision created a parallel pathway that allowed the committee to take sweeping steps limiting fundamental rights without any involvement from the courts.
In its findings, the court said the state failed to show that the restriction on constitutional rights met the strict test under Article 24. That article requires any limitation on a fundamental freedom to be clear, precise, reasonable, and demonstrably justified in an open and democratic society.
“The State has not discharged its burden to show that the limitation is both necessary and the least restrictive means available,” the court ruled.
Justice Patricia Mande added that giving an administrative committee authority to block websites before judicial review amounted to unconstitutional prior restraint. She said the approach also created a risk of arbitrary enforcement.
The court warned that the broad powers would likely push legitimate online expression into silence. It said individuals and digital platforms would censor themselves to avoid sanctions.
“Such anticipatory silence is antithetical to the constitutional commitment to a vibrant and uninhibited marketplace of ideas, which Articles 32, 33, and 34 were crafted to protect,” she stated.
Another key provision the court struck down was Section 27(1)(b), which criminalized communications that allegedly could push another person to commit suicide.
Justice Patricia Mande ruled that the provision lacked clarity and went too far. She said it relied on speculative standards and did not define with enough precision what conduct would qualify as a criminal offense.
She also found that imposing criminal liability for communication that was “likely to cause” suicide violated the constitutional principle of legality. The judge said the test depended on subjective and indeterminate criteria.
“In the circumstances, the only proper conclusion is that section 27 1 (b) of the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Amendment Act 2025 is unconstitutional, invalid, and of no legal effect,” the judge ruled.
However, the court dismissed the petitioners’ challenge to Parliament’s legislative process for the amendment. It said the National Assembly complied with constitutional requirements on public participation by giving the public a reasonable chance to submit views before debate and passage of the bill.
The court also rejected claims that the Senate should have participated in enacting the amendments. It said the legislation did not concern county governments and therefore did not require Senate approval.
Ultimately, Justice Mande said, the consolidated petitions succeeded only in part. She said the court invalidated Section 6(1)(j)(a) on website blocking and Section 27(1)(b) on criminalizing communication likely to cause another person to commit suicide.
