Rights groups move to Supreme Court over cyber law surveillance powers
National
By
David Njaaga
| May 13, 2026
Four civil society groups have petitioned the Supreme Court to strike out sections of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act that govern surveillance, citing privacy violations.
The Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), Article 19 East Africa and the Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ) filed the petition on April 13, 2026, appealing a Court of Appeal ruling delivered on March 6, 2026, which upheld the validity of the contested sections.
The petitioners contend that sections 27, 28, 37, 48, 50, 51, 52 and 53 of the 2018 law are unconstitutional, saying the Court of Appeal misinterpreted and misapplied the Constitution in finding otherwise.
At the heart of the challenge is the absence of a notification requirement. Under sections 52(6) and 53(6), service providers are barred from disclosing surveillance orders to the individuals being monitored.
The petition argues that once investigations conclude, there is no obligation to inform a person that their data was collected or their communications intercepted.
"Without notification, even post-investigation, individuals remain permanently unaware that their rights have been infringed. This effectively insulates unlawful or arbitrary surveillance from scrutiny, as there is no practical avenue for redress," the petition states.
The groups further argue that the lack of a defined procedure undermines judicial oversight, as courts cannot impose or monitor compliance with standards not expressly provided in law.
"The absence of a notification requirement also undermines judicial oversight, as courts cannot review or remedy violations that are never brought before them. It creates a system where surveillance powers operate in secrecy, without accountability, and increases the risk of abuse," the petition adds.
The petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to declare the sections unconstitutional and invalid under Article 23 of the Constitution.
In the alternative, they want the court to read sufficient judicial safeguards into the provisions to bring them under constitutional review.