State impunity: Lawyers, activists protest cyber law used to prosecute Njeri

Lawyers on Tuesday fought off the charge brought against Rose Njeri, terming it fictitious, as they poked holes in the plan to pin her down using provisions of the Cybercrimes Act.

In the end, Njeri did not take a plea as her legal team battled the charge brought by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), raising fresh questions over whether the State is weaponising the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act to stifle civic participation and digital activism.

The case, which has ignited a national conversation about the intersection of law, technology, and democracy, saw high-profile legal minds and civil society come together in a courtroom showdown that may set a precedent for years to come.

Njeri, a software developer and civic activist, was arraigned at the Milimani Law Courts after spending more than 90 hours in police custody.

She faces one count: Unauthorised interference with a computer system, contrary to Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (2018).

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Rose Njeri: My harrowing four days locked up in police cells
• 
  Why activist Rose Njeri wants her case thrown out
• 
  Wetangula now faulted for his 'skewed reading' of judgments
• 
  State impunity: Lawyers, activists protest cyber law used to prosecute Njeri

According to the charge sheet, Njeri is accused of creating and deploying a web-based programme that allowed members of the public to send emails to the National Assembly’s Finance Committee, expressing opinions on the controversial Finance Bill, 2025.

The DPP alleges that the mass emailing disrupted the normal functioning of the Committee’s systems.

The alleged offence occurred on May 19 at 8:01 pm.

But as the prosecution sought to nail her on what they termed “unauthorised interference with a computer system”, her legal team saw something far more troubling: The potential weaponisation of law to crush civic dissent.

Njeri was arrested on May 30 and held in police custody without being granted bail or presented in court until a public outcry and mounting protests forced action.

Outside the Milimani Law Courts, chants of “Free Njeri! We want justice!” rent the air as activists camped for hours under the glare of police officers, some of whom chased protesters away and arrested others. “This case is not just about Rose. It’s about every Kenyan who wants to be heard by their government,” said a protester.

After several hours of protests, Njeri — who had been held in an undisclosed location — was finally arraigned at 12:45 pm before Milimani Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo.

Inside the courtroom, the stakes were high.

However, when the matter was called, Njeri — represented by a team of lawyers including former Chief Justice David Maraga, Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka, Senator Dan Maanzo, former LSK president Eric Theuri, Kibe Mungai, Ndegwa Njiru, and advocate John Khamwina — did not take a plea.

Instead, her defence mounted a fierce constitutional and procedural challenge to the very basis of the prosecution.

Led by Maraga, the team argued that the prosecution’s case was built on vague accusations and a misinterpretation of Kenya’s cybercrime laws.

“The charges brought against Ms Njeri lack specificity, are poorly drafted, and fail to establish any real criminal intent,” said Maraga.

“What we are seeing is a clear case of the law being stretched to punish a tech worker for what is, at worst, a contractual or civil dispute.”

Malicious hackers

“The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act was designed to target malicious hackers, fraudsters, and cyber terrorists — not freelance web developers caught in business disputes,” said the former CJ.

“Charging someone like Rose Njeri under this law weaponises legislation in a way that could stifle innovation and silence dissent in the tech sector.”
Maraga further criticised the manner of Njeri’s detention, arguing that there was a sinister motive behind her arrest on Friday.

He urged the court to release her, arguing that the police could have simply summoned her to present herself at any station, rather than employing the heavy-handed tactics used.

Senator Maanzo argued that the charge was not only vague and ambiguous but also unconstitutional.

“This charge violates Article 25(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and prohibits its limitation,” Maanzo said.

“It does not disclose any offence and must be struck out.”

Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka was more direct:

“If her crime is to sensitise Kenyans to say yes or no to a Finance Bill, then what crime is that? Are we criminalising engagement now?”

Former LSK President Theuri was equally blunt:

“Our view is that the charge is defective. The law defines cybercrime as unauthorised access or interference with a computer system — what we know as hacking. Rose did not hack anything.”
According to Theuri, the law being cited was never intended to criminalise the sending of emails to a publicly available government email address.

“The particulars of the offence as they have provided do not meet the criteria set out in law,” he argued.

“Even though she may have created a system that enabled a lot of people to send emails, the email address was used for the purpose for which it was set.”

“She created a system that sends emails to an address that was specifically set up to receive public input. You cannot criminalise someone for helping citizens participate in their democracy.”
In fact, the very purpose of public hearings on the Finance Bill is to encourage citizen feedback. He emphasised that sending emails to an address created for public feedback cannot amount to hacking.

“You cannot accuse someone of causing too many people to send emails when the address was meant to receive emails. That cannot be criminal.”
Theuri further accused the government of abusing the Cybercrimes Act to silence dissent.

Section 118 of the Constitution requires Parliament to conduct its business in an open manner and to facilitate public participation in law-making.

Article 10 of the same document outlines public participation as a national value.

At the same time, Muigai also termed the charge illegal and absurd.

According to him, the State had invoked a law designed to prosecute hackers and digital criminals in order to charge Njeri.

Yet, the particulars of her alleged offence revealed no hacking, no intrusion, and no harm.

Instead, they described her role in building a digital platform for citizens to engage with legislation — the very essence of democratic duty.

“Parliament expects public participation. The Constitution demands it,” Kibe said.

“How can someone be charged for doing what Article 10, 118, and Article 3 of the Constitution require her to do?”

Kibe added that the charges facing Njeri “are not criminal but political.” “What the State is doing is weaponising the law, twisting a statute meant for cybercrime into a sword to silence democratic expression,” he added.
Behind him, supporters of Njeri clutched signs, eyes blazing with solidarity and fear.

If building a civic website could be a crime, who was safe?

“This,” Kibe said, “is not a prosecution. It is persecution. And in a democracy, lawful mobilisation is not a threat — it is a right!”
He accused the DPP of being used politically by the government.

The disputed platform created by Njeri allowed citizens to input their views on the Finance Bill through a web interface, which then auto-generated an email to a designated address at the National Assembly.

The prosecution argues that this caused “interference” — a charge typically reserved for actions such as system intrusions, malware deployment, or data tampering.

But her lawyers contend that the platform was merely an efficiency tool — the digital equivalent of thousands of Kenyans writing to their MPs.

The DPP, however, insisted there is enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Through State Counsel Victor Owiti, the DPP informed the court that the charges against Njeri are well-drafted and proper in law.

However, the court deferred plea-taking and released Njeri on a personal bond of Sh100,000, pending a ruling on June 20 on the legality of the charge.