The High Court has declared unconstitutional two provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, including one that authorised a State committee to order the blocking of websites and online applications without first obtaining a court order.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Patricia Mande, the court found that Section 6(1)(j)(a) granted excessive powers to the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee by allowing it to direct internet service providers to disable access to digital platforms suspected of hosting content related to terrorism, violent extremism, child sexual exploitation and other unlawful activities without judicial oversight.
Justice Mande held that the provision violated constitutional guarantees protecting freedom of expression, media freedom and freedom of religion.
She observed that allowing an administrative body to determine the legality of online content and order its removal without prior court approval amounted to prior restraint, one of the most serious forms of censorship.
The judge further found that the provision lacked adequate procedural safeguards and clear evidentiary standards, creating the potential for arbitrary enforcement.
She rejected the State’s argument that judicial oversight could be inferred from the law, noting that Parliament had deliberately established a separate enforcement process involving the courts, demonstrating that the disputed provision was intended to operate independently.
According to the court, the State failed to satisfy the constitutional requirements under Article 24, which permits limitations on fundamental rights only where they are reasonable, justifiable and clearly defined in a democratic society.
Justice Mande also warned that granting the committee unrestricted authority to block websites without prior judicial approval could have a chilling effect on online expression, prompting individuals and digital platforms to censor lawful content out of fear of sanctions.
The court also struck down Section 27(1)(b) of the amended Act, which criminalised communication considered likely to cause another person to commit suicide.
Justice Mande ruled that the provision was impermissibly vague and overly broad because it did not clearly define the conduct constituting the offence.
She held that imposing criminal liability based on communication merely deemed “likely” to result in suicide violated the constitutional principle of legality by relying on subjective and speculative standards rather than clearly established legal thresholds.
However, the court declined to invalidate the law on procedural grounds. It found that the National Assembly had provided sufficient opportunities for public participation during the legislative process and ruled that the Senate’s involvement was unnecessary because the legislation did not affect the functions of county governments.
The consolidated petitions therefore succeeded only in part. While the High Court nullified the provisions permitting the administrative blocking of websites and criminalising communication likely to cause another person to commit suicide, it upheld the remainder of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025.
