Time to rethink Computer Misuse Act, stop fresh reforms
As it stands, the Computer Misuse Act prescribes shockingly harsh penalties.
What you need to know:
- As it stands, the Computer Misuse Act prescribes shockingly harsh penalties.
- Cyber harassment can attract a fine of up to Sh20 million or a prison term of up to 10 years.
In case you missed it, Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 is up for amendment. Not because it's toothless but because someone somewhere thinks it needs to bite even harder.
Yet even in its current form, the Act has already inflicted its share of pain. If anything, it’s possible that the courts have shown restraint or aren’t fully aware of the law’s full punitive potential. That might explain why only a few extreme cases have drawn public attention.
Consider what happened just last week: Albert Ojwang, a teacher from Homa Bay, died in police custody days after his arrest. His alleged offence? A defamation complaint filed against him by Deputy Inspector General Eliud Lagat.
In May, an Eldoret court ordered Kevin Ndung’u, a third year University of Nairobi law student, to pay Sh7.5 million to Benard Kagia—a driver linked to Prophet David Owuor’s ministry—for defamation and cyber harassment. The court found Ndung’u guilty under Section 27 of the Act for a Facebook post questioning Kagia’s family values.
Prescribes harsh penalties
Yet defamation is already well covered under the Defamation Act.
Just this week, a Siaya magistrate’s court ordered blogger Michael Ochieng to pay Sh3.3 million in damages—this time under the Defamation Act—for Facebook and WhatsApp posts targeting Siaya Public Service Board CEO Wilfred Nyagudi. The court ruled the posts sarcastic, harmful, and unfounded. Ochieng must delete them and issue a public apology.
Back to the Computer Misuse law: as it stands, it prescribes shockingly harsh penalties.
For example, cyber harassment can attract a fine of up to Sh20 million or a prison term of up to 10 years—or both. And what qualifies as cyber harassment? Any communication “likely to cause apprehension or fear of violence,” or that “detrimentally affects” the person, or is “grossly offensive.”
Publishing false information
Other sections are equally draconian. Section 22 on false publications carries a penalty of up to Sh5 million or two years in jail. Section 23 on publishing false information increases that to 10 years. Let that sink in: a decade in prison over a tweet or Facebook post, depending on a magistrate’s mood—or worse, if they’re under pressure.
Still, Wajir East MP Mohamed Aden Daudi wants the law tightened further. He’s proposing to amend Section 6 to empower the National Computer and Cybercrimes Committee to issue orders blocking access to websites or apps said to “promote illegal activities.”
It sounds reasonable—until you examine who sits on this committee. It is chaired by the Interior Principal Secretary, security chiefs, Communications Authority, and Central Bank are in the committee.
Who decides what qualifies as an “illegal activity”? And why place the power to shut down websites in the hands of a committee—rather than a court?
I appeal to the chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Communication, Information and Innovation, to seize this moment to rewrite the Act boldly and wisely—for the sake of generations to come.
The author is an editor and a Council Member of the Kenya Editors Guild, representing digital media. His views are personal.