New Petition Seeks to Block State Access to Kenyans’ Emails and Calls
The Supreme Court has fast-tracked a petition challenging the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act of 2018, putting the government’s power to spy on Kenyans’ private digital communications squarely in the spotlight.
Filed on Tuesday, May 13, the case unites a formidable coalition comprising the Bloggers Association of Kenya, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), Article 19 Eastern Africa, and the Kenya Union of Journalists in a shared fight to dismantle surveillance provisions they believe go too far.
The legal battle picks up where a March 2026 Court of Appeal ruling left off. That decision struck down sections of the law that criminalized sharing false or misleading information online, offering a partial victory for digital rights advocates. But the petitioners argue the ruling did not go nearly far enough, leaving intact some of the most intrusive powers in the entire Act.
What the Petitioners Want Struck Down
At the heart of the challenge are Sections 27, 28, 37, 48, 50, 51, 52, and 53 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act. The petitioners argue these provisions directly violate Articles 31 and 33 of the Constitution, which protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
Former LSK President Faith Odhiambo laid out exactly what is at stake. The upheld sections, she told the court, hand the State sweeping powers with little accountability to match.
“The court upheld Sections 48-53, which permit the State to intercept your emails, voice calls, and digital communications for up to 9 months; compel service providers to hand over your subscriber data; and search any person present on premises during a data-related warrant, all with what we believe is insufficient judicial oversight,” Odhiambo said.
She argued that these powers do not just create the potential for abuse; they make abuse nearly impossible to detect or challenge.
The Secrecy Problem
One of the most troubling aspects of the law, according to the petitioners, is the blanket secrecy surrounding surveillance orders. Current rules force service providers to keep interception orders confidential, meaning Kenyans whose communications the government monitors may never find out, not during an investigation and not after it ends.
This permanent silence, the petitioners argue, does more than shield the government from scrutiny. It also shuts ordinary citizens out of the justice system entirely. If you do not know the State intercepted your communications, you cannot challenge it in court. That dynamic, they contend, strips judges of any meaningful ability to review how authorities use these powers.
A Constitutional Test
The petition frames the entire surveillance framework as a failure on constitutional grounds. Beyond privacy and free expression, the organizations argue the law violates Article 24, which requires that any limitation on fundamental rights be reasonable, justifiable, and proportionate. In their view, the current legal safeguards clear none of those bars.
Odhiambo described the case as a defining moment for how Kenya balances national security with human rights in an era where so much of daily life plays out online. She argued the Supreme Court must now draw clear boundaries on how far state surveillance power can reach and where the Constitution demands it stop.
The case arrives at a critical moment for digital rights in the country and especially ahead of the electioneering period. With the Supreme Court certifying it as urgent, Kenya’s highest bench now has the opportunity to set a landmark precedent on state surveillance, privacy, and the future of free expression in the digital age.
The post New Petition Seeks to Block State Access to Kenyans’ Emails and Calls appeared first on Nairobi Wire.