The High Court has declared unconstitutional a key provision of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, ruling that the government cannot direct internet service providers to block websites and online applications without prior court approval.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Patricia Mande held that Section 6(1)(j)(a) of the amended law violated constitutional protections on freedom of religion, freedom of expression and media freedom by granting broad censorship powers to an administrative body without adequate safeguards.
The impugned provision empowered the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to instruct internet service providers to block access to websites and applications suspected of hosting content related to unlawful activities, terrorism, violent extremism, child sexual exploitation and other specified offences.
However, the court found that the amendment effectively allowed the committee to determine whether online content was prohibited and order its removal without judicial oversight.
“The amendment confers upon an administrative body a sweeping authority to impose prior restraint, the most severe form of censorship, in the absence of procedural safeguards and evidential thresholds,” Justice Mande ruled.
The court rejected the State’s argument that judicial oversight could be implied into the law, noting that Parliament had already created a separate enforcement mechanism that expressly required court supervision.
According to the judgment, the disputed provision established a parallel process that enabled the committee to restrict constitutional rights without involving the judiciary.
Justice Mande further held that the State had failed to demonstrate that the limitation of constitutional rights satisfied the requirements of Article 24 of the Constitution, which requires any restriction of fundamental freedoms to be lawful, reasonable, precise and justifiable.
“The State has not discharged its burden to show that the limitation is both necessary and the least restrictive means available,” the court held.
The judge also warned that allowing an administrative committee to block online content before judicial determination amounted to unconstitutional prior restraint and created a risk of arbitrary censorship.
She observed that the broad powers could encourage self-censorship among individuals and digital platforms, undermining the constitutional protection of free expression.
The High Court also struck down Section 27(1)(b) of the amendment, which criminalised communication deemed likely to cause another person to die by suicide.
Justice Mande found the provision to be vague, overly broad and inconsistent with the constitutional principle of legality because it relied on speculative and subjective standards to impose criminal liability.
“In the circumstances, the only proper conclusion is that Section 27(1)(b) of the Computer Misuse and Cyber Crimes Amendment Act, 2025, is unconstitutional, invalid and of no legal effect,” the judge ruled.
However, the court dismissed claims challenging the legislative process, finding that Parliament complied with constitutional requirements on public participation by providing the public with a reasonable opportunity to submit views before the Bill was debated and passed.
