The Law Society of Kenya is seeking to secure a full hearing before the Supreme Court in the ongoing legal battle over the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, warning that reducing its role in the proceedings could weaken public interest representation in a case touching on freedom of expression and digital rights.
Court documents filed by the society show that LSK wants the apex court to formally recognise it as a substantive party in the appeal, insisting that it has been involved in the dispute from the start and should not be treated as a secondary participant.
The case dates back to 2018 when LSK moved to court challenging sections of the cybercrimes law, arguing that some provisions threatened constitutional freedoms. However, the High Court later closed its separate file and absorbed it into a petition filed by the Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE), where the lawyers’ body was listed as an interested party.
LSK says the change in status was not by choice and that it continued participating in the matter because of its legal obligation to defend constitutional rights and the public interest.
The society told the Supreme Court that despite taking part in proceedings before the Court of Appeal as a respondent, concerns later emerged at the registry over how it had filed an appeal while holding the status of “a mere interested party”.
According to LSK, that interpretation could unfairly restrict its involvement in a dispute that raises weighty constitutional questions affecting Kenyans using digital platforms.
“unconstitutionally, unfairly and unlawfully deny it audience or restrict its participation on that premise”
The lawyers’ body further argued that its participation in the case goes beyond the interests of individual litigants because the matter concerns wider public rights protected by the Constitution.
“The Applicant did not join this dispute as a bystander. It did so as a statutory duty under Section 4 of the Law Society of Kenya Act, and in the public interest. Public interest, in its very nature, outlives primary parties to a dispute,” LSK submitted.
The Supreme Court has already marked the application as urgent and ordered advocate Dudley Ochiel to serve all parties within seven days. Directions on the hearing will be taken before the registrar on May 21.
At the centre of the dispute is the Court of Appeal ruling delivered in March, where judges struck out Sections 22 and 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.
The appellate court found that the sections criminalising the publication of “false or misleading information” were unconstitutional because they posed a danger to free speech and media freedom.
“risk criminalising satire, opinions and journalistic inaccuracies”
The judges also said the wording of the law lacked clarity and could leave too much room for abuse by authorities enforcing the legislation.
Even so, the court retained several other sections of the law dealing with offences such as cyber harassment, unlawful interception of data, sharing intimate images and interference with computer systems, ruling that those provisions were justified.
The decision prompted several parties to move to the Supreme Court.
BAKE, civil society organisations, Article 19 East Africa and the Kenya Union of Journalists filed separate appeals challenging parts of the judgment, while Director of Public Prosecutions Renson Ingonga contested the entire ruling.
LSK has also faulted Section 14 of the Act, arguing that it restricts rights protected under Article 33 of the Constitution, including freedom to seek and share information, academic freedom and scientific research.
The society warned that the law could expose whistleblowers, bloggers, journalists and digital activists to criminal punishment for publishing leaked documents or information in the public interest, including reports linked to corruption in government.
The outcome of the Supreme Court case is expected to shape how Kenya handles online speech, digital freedoms and criminal responsibility in the internet era, while also defining the balance between state enforcement powers and constitutional protections.