A Nairobi court has dropped cybercrime charges against civic tech developer Rose Njeri, ruling that the case brought against her was legally flawed and failed to disclose any criminal offence.

Njeri, who was arrested on May 30 following a police raid at her home, had been accused of unauthorised interference with a computer system under Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.

Her arrest was linked to her role in creating an online platform that enabled citizens to send emails to Parliament’s Finance Committee, voicing their concerns over the proposed Finance Bill, 2025.

In a ruling delivered at the Milimani Law Courts on Friday, principal magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo said the charges presented were "defective" and did not clearly state any wrongdoing on Njeri’s part.

“In light of the same statutes, I hereby refuse to admit the two counts of charges against the suspect. She is hereby discharged under Section 890(5) of the Constitution that requires disclosure of the offence,” he ruled.

The magistrate further noted that the Constitution guarantees every person a right to a fair trial, and in this case, the charges failed to meet that threshold.

Njeri had earlier been freed on a personal bond of Sh100,000 after being arraigned in court. Her legal team, led by Kalonzo Musyoka, Eric Theuri, and former Chief Justice David Maraga, had urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the accusations lacked clarity and substance.

In his submission, Theuri told the court that the email used in the case had been created by Parliament itself for public engagement on the Finance Bill. “Your honour, we fail to understand how to respond to the charge since the email used originated from the government, and that means any person who sent an email to the same is a victim,” he said.

Theuri explained that Njeri used the email address exactly as intended, to send public views to Parliament. “She responded to the government as it was the bottom line when the Parliament created the email,” he said, insisting that they were unable to advise their client on whether to plead guilty or not to the vague charge.