By Frank Bray
It was a perplexing turn of events for most countrymen who zoned out into Baba’s funeral, only to be slapped awake by the news of new policy signing by the President. Some must have felt betrayed, while others were too sorrowful to care. Still, some were positive.
I listened to the radio one morning afterwards and realised it wasn’t a fully negative move after all.
A number of callers praised the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024 (assented October 15, 2025), citing their own experiences with the subject. It became clear that cybercrime is a real menace.
“Someone once spread a rumour about me on a social platform, and soon my phone was blowing up with people asking what was happening. People who didn’t even know me now knew me — but in a bad light,” one caller said.
Another noted that they stopped focusing on people’s comments online just to protect their peace. Apparently, it is a mentally exhausting stunt for some people to stomach abusive or disrespectful comments and online attacks from anonymous audiences. Sometimes, recovery happens by the skin of one’s teeth.
What the Cybercrime Amendment reasonably highlights is that some online comments come not from a place of factual knowledge or understanding, but from a barely informed urge to just have a say no matter how reckless the comment. However, the era of reckless online commenting seems to be under serious threat. At least that’s what some people hope.
Yet the consequences of the new law could be a dark shadow looming over citizens. A monster that might pounce and terrorize when the opportunity arises. Critics have raised concerns that some clauses could allow arrests and detentions with limited oversight by cybercrime police. Although the law does not explicitly authorize detention without the right process, many critics raise fears of misuse.
There have also been reports of alleged past unlawful arrests and abductions in sensitive political contexts, which have increased public anxiety about how such policies could be utilized. (See: Article 19 and Amnesty Kenya joint statement, Oct 2025.)
It’s clear that the government today, like those before it, has suffered serious blows from online criticism and trolling, and individuals, too. It is, therefore, a positive step to protect citizens and the government from unfair or defamatory attacks.
Still, the Constitution, particularly Articles 33 and 34, which guarantee freedom of expression and of the media, continues to protect the right of every citizen to demand fair, transparent, and accountable leadership.
We hope these policies will not result in unlawful arrests or intimidation of citizens who reasonably question authority in online spaces. Truth cannot thrive unless there’s room for questions and clarifications.
Citizens also hope that the government will not only craft reactive policies born from its own backlash, but also pursue laws that genuinely uplift its people socially, politically, economically, and even spiritually. Policies that have been held pending for years, yet could transform the lives of ordinary Kenyans positively.
After all is said and done, our Constitution should never evolve into a tool for gagging the ‘dogs’ so they don’t bark or the ‘lions’ so they don’t roar. The spirit of democracy must be kept alive. The space to ask questions must stay open, and the battleground for good governance and a sovereign and well-governed society must be protected.
