By Peter Mwibanda
NAIROBI, Kenya.
Kenya’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Renson Ingonga, is under growing scrutiny for pursuing charges under laws already declared unconstitutional—raising concerns over a pattern of prosecutorial overreach and suppression of free expression.
In a recent case that ignited public outrage, Gen Z activist Rose Njeri was charged under Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (CMCA), which criminalized the publication of “false information.”
The High Court previously struck down the section in 2020 for being vague and incompatible with the Constitution.
A Nairobi court dismissed the charges against Njeri, citing the landmark ruling in Bloggers Association of Kenya v. Attorney General, which found that the law lacked clear definitions, chilled free speech, and violated Articles 33 and 50 of the Constitution.
Despite that ruling, the DPP’s office has continued to use the invalidated provision, a move legal experts and activists say undermines judicial authority and breaches the rule of law.
“This is not just a legal misstep. It’s a deliberate misuse of power,” said a constitutional lawyer familiar with the case. “The DPP is acting in defiance of settled court precedent.”
Critics argue that Kenya’s cybercrime laws, rather than protecting citizens from genuine digital threats, are now being used to target online dissent—particularly by young Kenyans demanding government accountability.
Online satire, memes, tweets, and critical posts are increasingly drawing legal threats under vaguely worded cyber provisions.
Digital activists say the growing trend has created an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship.
“The DPP is turning social media into a crime scene,” said one youth protester. “Freedom of expression is being criminalized.”
Under the Constitution, Kenyans are guaranteed freedom of expression (Article 33), the right to fair administrative action (Article 47), and a fair trial (Article 50).
The continued prosecution of citizens under annulled laws violates those rights and amounts to abuse of legal process.
Article 157(11) of the Constitution requires the DPP to act in public interest and to prevent misuse of the justice system.
Legal observers say that mandate is being ignored.
In dismissing Njeri’s case, the court noted the state failed to show any public harm caused by her posts, nor any intention to incite unrest.
“What we are witnessing is not prosecution—it is persecution,” said a senior judicial officer who requested anonymity. “It’s a dangerous precedent.”
The DPP’s apparent disregard for judicial rulings not only undermines public confidence but raises constitutional questions about the integrity of the office.
Legal analysts say continued defiance could be grounds for removal under Chapter Six of the Constitution, which addresses leadership and integrity.
“This is a rogue approach to justice,” said a former judge. “It threatens the democratic fabric of this country.”
Civil society groups and legal professionals are now calling for parliamentary oversight and urgent reform of the Office of the DPP.
“The courts have spoken. The Constitution is clear. The people are watching,” said a statement from a coalition of rights groups.
As Kenya navigates a delicate political moment, the role of the DPP is in sharp focus. For many, the question remains: Is this justice—or state-sponsored intimidation?
Either way, critics say, Kenya cannot afford a prosecutor who weaponizes the law to silence the people he is sworn to protect.
Ends.
