The Lower Eastern Times Opening The Third Eye
Related Articles
The High Court has declared unconstitutional a controversial provision of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, which allowed a government committee to order internet service providers to block websites and online platforms without first obtaining court approval.
In a judgment delivered on Thursday, Justice Patricia Mande ruled that Section 6(1)(j)(a) of the amended law violated constitutional protections on freedom of expression, media freedom and freedom of religion by granting broad censorship powers to an administrative body without sufficient legal safeguards.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel
The provision had authorised the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee to instruct internet service providers to restrict access to websites or applications suspected of hosting prohibited content linked to offences such as terrorism, violent extremism, child sexual exploitation and other unlawful activities.
However, the court found that the committee had effectively been given the authority to determine whether online content should be removed without any prior judicial oversight.
Justice Mande held that the law handed an administrative body sweeping powers to impose prior restraint—the strictest form of censorship—without adequate procedural protections or clear evidentiary standards.
The judge also rejected the government’s argument that court oversight could be assumed, noting that Parliament had already created a separate enforcement process that specifically involved judicial supervision. According to the court, the challenged provision established an alternative route that allowed fundamental rights to be restricted without involving the judiciary.
The ruling further stated that the government had failed to prove that the limitations imposed by the law met the constitutional test under Article 24, which requires any restriction of fundamental rights to be reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in a democratic society.
Justice Mande warned that allowing an administrative committee to block websites before a court ruling opened the door to arbitrary enforcement and unconstitutional censorship.
She added that the broad powers could discourage lawful online speech, forcing individuals and digital platforms to self-censor for fear of sanctions, undermining constitutional protections for free expression.
The court also struck down Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, which criminalised communication considered likely to drive another person to suicide.
Justice Mande ruled that the provision was vague and overly broad because it failed to clearly define what conduct would amount to a criminal offence, making it inconsistent with the constitutional principle of legality.
However, the court dismissed challenges to the legislative process, finding that Parliament met constitutional requirements on public participation before passing the amendments.
It also ruled that the Senate was not required to consider the Bill because the amendments did not directly affect county governments.
As a result, the High Court declared both Section 6(1)(j)(a), which authorised website blocking without court approval, and Section 27(1)(b), relating to communication likely to cause suicide, unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable.
