Public outcry over proposed cybercrime law with harsh penalties
The bill currently suggests imposing penalties ranging from Sh5 million to Sh20 million.
Stakeholders are urging a reconsideration of the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Amendment Bill 2024, specifically advocating for a reduction in the steep fines outlined for offenders.
The bill currently suggests imposing penalties ranging from Sh5 million to Sh20 million.
They argue that the law has been used to target individuals considered critics of the government or other powerful figures in society.
Many believe the proposed legislation prioritizes political control over addressing computer misuse and cybercrimes, effectively restricting freedom of speech, the media, and expression.
"It is essential that the Bill safeguards fundamental rights and freedoms in a democratic society instead of imposing harsh penalties," said policy and legal expert Kiragu Wachira.
He stressed that issues like defamation should not be criminalized with severe punishments.
Highlighting that the Bill touches on data privacy, protection, and human rights, the expert called for the inclusion of the Data Commissioner, along with the chairs of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR) and the National Gender and Equality Commission (NGEC), as members of the National Computer and Cyber Crimes Coordination Committee.
Suba Churchill, Executive Director of the Kenya National Civil Society Centre, expressed concern that the government is overregulating the digital communication space by introducing multiple laws with overlapping objectives.
"We must caution the government that while we understand the effort to remove the country from the grey list, this approach is not the right way to achieve that," Churchill said, warning that the Bill’s potential infringements are unjustified.
Henry Ochieng, CEO of the Kenya Alliance of Residents Association (KARA), emphasized that although the amendments aim to establish regulatory frameworks for the digital space, care must be taken to uphold existing constitutional freedoms rather than erode them.
David Omwoyo, CEO of the Media Council of Kenya (MCK), also weighed in, calling for a review of the Bill to address several unclear provisions.
He pointed out that the Bill’s definition of "fraudulent intent" is vague, failing to clarify whether identity theft must involve malicious intent or a financial motive.
"This gap could create confusion when enforcing the law," Omwoyo noted.
He further advocated for investigative journalism to be explicitly exempted from the Bill’s restrictions, referencing the MCK’s Code of Conduct which allows for certain tactics in the public interest.
"Investigative journalists sometimes use subterfuge or assume false identities when justified by public interest. Clauses 7b and 7c of the Code of Conduct permit this," Omwoyo explained.
He cautioned that without clear protections, journalists who go undercover might face legal action despite acting in the public’s best interest.
