Parliament has formally moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court judgment that invalidated two key provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, setting the stage for a fresh legal battle over the regulation of online content in Kenya.
In a notice of appeal lodged before the appellate court, the National Assembly, the Speaker of the National Assembly and Parliament of Kenya, who were listed as the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents in the constitutional petition, indicated that they are dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision delivered on July 2 by Justice Patricia Nyaundi.
The three appellants have signalled their intention to challenge the entire judgment and the resulting decree.
“The Appellants, being dissatisfied with the whole judgment and decree of the High Court… hereby give notice of their intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the said judgment and decree,” the notice of appeal states.
The appeal follows a landmark judgment in which Justice Nyaundi struck down Section 6(1)(jA) of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The provision had empowered the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to order internet service providers and other entities to block websites, online platforms or applications without first obtaining court approval.
The judge found that the provision violated constitutional guarantees by permitting restrictions on access to online platforms without prior judicial oversight, exposing Kenyans to the risk of arbitrary censorship.
Justice Nyaundi also declared unconstitutional Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, which criminalised communication considered likely to cause another person to commit suicide. The court held that the provision failed to meet constitutional standards, citing concerns over its breadth and potential impact on fundamental rights.
The decision was celebrated by digital rights organisations and civil society groups, which had challenged the amendments on grounds that they infringed on freedom of expression, access to information and due process.
The petitioners argued that allowing administrative agencies to block online content without court supervision created an avenue for abuse and threatened democratic freedoms.
With Parliament now appealing the ruling, the Court of Appeal will be asked to determine whether the High Court erred in finding that the impugned provisions were inconsistent with the Constitution.
Click Here For The Original Source.
