The Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) expresses profound concern over the regime's proposal to establish a digital intelligence unit to monitor online activity, as contained in the annual report on the state of national security (2024–2025), tabled in Parliament by Mr. William Ruto.
National security, which encompasses protection against internal and external threats to Kenya’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as the rights, freedoms, property, and other national interests of its people, is promoted and guaranteed in accordance with the Constitution, as outlined in Article 238. Critical to this is sub-article (2)(b) of 238, which declares that national security shall be pursued in compliance with utmost respect for the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.
Consequently, the proposed digital intelligence unit, as presently conceived, raises grave governance and justice concerns about the standardization of mass digital surveillance and the erosion of fundamental rights, particularly at a politically sensitive moment as the country approaches the 2027 general elections.
This nefarious proposal comes in the midst of the deepening political and digital repression in the country and the region. The latest report by CIVICUS, which KHRC and the Civic Freedoms Forum (CFF) supported, presents an unfortunate situation of repressed civic space. Many punitive and prohibitive policies have been implemented since 2013 (when Ruto became the deputy president under Uhuru Kenyatta), including the Security Amendment Bills of 2014, the National Integrated Management System (NIIMS), popularly known as Huduma Namba, and the planned Device Management System (DMS) for mobile networks, among others.
The latest was the enactment of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes (Amendment) Act, 2024, which significantly expanded the regime's powers to block online content and compel compliance by internet service providers. KHRC, alongside other petitioners, has successfully challenged these before the courts for violating the Constitution, including Articles 31 (right to privacy), 33 (freedom of expression), 36 (right to association), and 37 (right to assembly).
The regime's abuse of digital surveillance and policing was at its worst during the 2024 Gen Z-led protests, which saw many young people tracked, captured, and subjected to unprecedented atrocities. According to the regime’s own report, 42 civilians were killed, hundreds were injured, and over 1,700 people were arrested -- although these figures have been deliberately and vastly underreported to downplay the magnitude of the violations. This has also deepened transnational repression.
Thus, the regime’s framing of social media as a driver of “lawlessness” and a tool for protest mobilization risks criminalizing dissent and peaceful civic engagement. These fundamental rights and freedoms are expressly safeguarded under the Constitution and the international treaties, and the regime has no power to rescind them whatsoever.
Key legal and human rights concerns
- Right to privacy
The proposed Digital Intelligence Unit lacks clarity on the nature, scope, and limits of data collection. Any system that enables the monitoring of online communications without prior judicial authorization, necessity, proportionality, and independent oversight constitutes unconstitutional surveillance. We cannot afford to have unfettered access to our data.
- Freedom of expression and assembly
Digital spaces have become central to democratic participation, political organizing, journalism, and human rights advocacy. Treating online mobilization as a security threat undermines the rights the Constitution was designed to protect. In a context where journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have increasingly faced harassment, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial violence, expanded digital surveillance powers create a heightened risk of profiling, intimidation, and political targeting.
- The State has not disclosed which agencies will operate the digital intelligence unit, what technologies will be deployed, or what independent mechanisms will be in place to prevent abuse.
Based on the above, KHRC firmly rejects the establishment of this unit, and we commit to challenging it in all policy and civic spaces. Comparative experience shows that while some democratic states address cybercrime through narrowly tailored and legally constrained mechanisms, unchecked digital surveillance is characteristic of authoritarian regimes and hybrid democracies where technology is used to suppress dissent and entrench political power. Kenya must not follow this path.