Kenyans Accuse Gov’t Panel of Paid Ploy to Normalize New Cybercrimes Law
The ink is barely dry on President William Ruto’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, and already the government is trying to pull a fast one. Signed on October 15th, this new law promises to ‘address digital threats’ with hefty penalties for ‘false information’ and ‘cyber harassment’—terms so broad they could swallow Kenyan free speech whole.
But the real scandal isn’t just the law itself (which the High Court has already partially suspended following brilliant legal challenges from the Law Society of Kenya and other defenders of democracy). No, the immediate outrage is the government’s utterly transparent attempt at damage control: the so-called ‘public education’ panel.
The Clowns of State: Influencers Over Integrity
In a move that drips with cynicism, the government rounded up a crew of well-known influencers—including names like Dr. King’ori and Oga Obinna—to “educate” the masses on the new law.
Let’s be clear: This wasn’t an education forum; it was a propaganda tour.
Kenyans on X (formerly Twitter) saw through the thinly veiled ploy instantly. Where were the actual legal experts? The digital rights advocates? The constitutional lawyers who could actually explain the nuances and dangers of the Act?
Instead, we got what looked like a cheap, paid-for promotional gig. It’s an insult to the intelligence of every Kenyan citizen to parade celebrities and call it a serious public briefing on a law that threatens basic rights. It screams: “We don’t want you to understand the law; we want you to be afraid of it and believe whatever we tell you.”
The Verdict is Out: Censorship Attempt Fails
This whole spectacle proves one thing: the Ruto administration knows this law is deeply unpopular and constitutionally suspect. The lightning-fast criticism and the immediate High Court suspension of key sections show that Kenyans will not be silenced.
The government’s use of ‘soft power’—parading friendly faces to sell a draconian law—is a classic authoritarian tactic, and it has failed spectacularly. It confirms the deepest fears of critics: that the Act is less about ‘misuse’ and more about misdirecting the public while seizing the power to censor political dissent.
The fight for digital rights is far from over. We must demand transparency and real engagement, not celebrity cheerleaders shilling for state overreach.