David Morara Kebaso, a political activist and vocal critic of the Kenyan government, was charged with cyber harassment under Section 27 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act No. 5 of 2018. The charges stem from a social media post on X (formerly Twitter) where Kebaso allegedly made defamatory remarks against businessman David Langat, accusing him of financial dealings with President William Ruto. The case has drawn significant public attention, not only because of Kebaso’s dramatic arrest but also due to the nature of the charges and the involvement of high-profile individuals, including NARC-Kenya leader Martha Karua, who is leading Kebaso’s defense.
The Charges: Cyber Harassment or Defamation?
Morara Kebaso’s indictment on cyber harassment charges has sparked debate over whether the case is genuinely about online harassment or if it is, in fact, an issue of defamation. The charges against him stem from a September 28, 2024 post in which he accused billionaire businessman David Langat of being financially involved with President William Ruto during the latter’s election campaign. According to Kebaso’s post, Langat had allegedly taken out large loans using his properties as collateral to finance Ruto’s campaign, and was now being auctioned by banks. The post further claimed that President Ruto was exploiting his influence to purchase Langat’s properties at undervalued prices.
The charge sheet indicates that Kebaso, alongside unnamed co-conspirators, knowingly disseminated false information with the intent to tarnish Langat’s reputation. However, Kebaso’s legal team, led by Martha Karua, has argued that the case should be framed as defamation, not cyber harassment. Defamation typically involves civil suits, while cyber harassment can carry criminal penalties. The defense has raised concerns over the criminalization of speech that critiques public figures, particularly when the purported harm pertains to reputation rather than harassment.
Legal Implications Under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act
The case against Kebaso falls under Section 27 of Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act No. 5 of 2018, which criminalizes the use of digital platforms to harass, intimidate, or otherwise harm others. The law was introduced to address the growing misuse of the internet to perpetuate crimes such as cyberbullying, hacking, and the spread of false information. However, its application in cases like Kebaso’s has raised concerns about freedom of speech, particularly when it comes to political discourse.
Critics of the law argue that it can be weaponized to silence government critics and suppress free speech under the guise of protecting individuals from cyber harassment. Kebaso’s defense team has echoed these concerns, questioning whether the charges reflect an attempt to intimidate a vocal government critic. According to Karua and her team, the case centers on the right to free speech and the protection of individuals who expose corruption and misuse of power by public figures.
In addition to questions about the appropriateness of the charges, the defense has raised issues regarding the charge sheet itself. As of the time of writing, it remains unclear who the official complainant in the case is, further complicating the legal proceedings. The defense has also challenged the framing of the case, arguing that criminal charges are not the appropriate response to allegations of reputational damage.
The Role of Martha Karua and the Defense Team
The involvement of Martha Karua, a former Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister and NARC-Kenya party leader, adds a layer of significance to the case. Karua is known for her staunch advocacy of constitutionalism, human rights, and the rule of law. Her decision to lead Kebaso’s defense suggests that the case is seen as a broader battle for free speech and the protection of activists who challenge the political status quo.
Karua, alongside a team of more than 10 lawyers, is not only challenging the validity of the charges but also positioning the case as a test of Kenya’s commitment to free expression. As Karua stated during the arraignment, “This case is about more than one individual. It is about the right to question those in power without fear of retaliation.”
The defense has emphasized that the charges of cyber harassment are an overreach, particularly given the context of Kebaso’s work as a political activist. They argue that his social media posts were part of a broader effort to expose corruption and demand accountability from the Kenyan government. Karua’s legal team is expected to contest the charges vigorously when the case is mentioned again on October 4, 2024.
Morara Kebaso’s Activism: A Thorn in the Government’s Side?
Morara Kebaso has built a reputation as a relentless critic of President William Ruto’s administration. His activism has primarily focused on exposing government failures, particularly around stalled projects and corruption. Kebaso’s social media accounts have become a platform for him to share information about projects that he claims have not been completed or have been riddled with mismanagement.
In the months leading up to his arrest, Kebaso had embarked on a nationwide tour, visiting various counties to document stalled government projects. His efforts to bring these issues to light have not been without consequence. According to Kebaso, he has been under surveillance by government agents since late August 2024. He has also reported receiving threats and being followed by vehicles with unidentified license plates, raising concerns about his safety.
Despite these threats, Kebaso has remained defiant, asserting that his work is too important to be abandoned. In an interview following his release on bail, he stated, “If I worry too much, I will not be able to continue my work. What I am doing is extremely risky, but the people have a right to know the truth.”
Kebaso’s activism has also placed him at odds with powerful figures in the business community. The allegations he made against David Langat, for example, could have significant ramifications for Langat’s reputation and business dealings, which may explain why the case has drawn such attention.
The Broader Context: Freedom of Speech in Kenya
Kebaso’s case has reignited debates over the state of free speech and political activism in Kenya. While Kenya’s 2010 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, there are concerns that laws like the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act may be used to stifle dissent. The arrest and prosecution of activists for their online activities have become more frequent, with many arguing that such actions are meant to intimidate and silence critics of the government.
International human rights organizations have also raised concerns about the increasing use of cybercrime laws to target activists. Amnesty International, for instance, has called on the Kenyan government to ensure that laws designed to protect against cybercrimes are not misused to infringe on civil liberties. In a statement, the organization noted that “while it is important to address issues of cyber harassment and the spread of false information, it is equally important to safeguard the right to free speech, particularly when it comes to holding those in power accountable.”
The Upcoming Hearing and What It Could Mean for Activism in Kenya
With Kebaso set to return to court on October 4, 2024, the case will likely serve as a litmus test for how Kenya navigates the balance between protecting individuals from online harassment and safeguarding the right to free expression. If the charges against Kebaso are upheld, it could set a precedent for the criminalization of political speech, particularly in the digital sphere. On the other hand, if the court sides with the defense, it could strengthen the protection of activists who use social media to expose corruption and criticize government actions.
As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched by civil society organizations, activists, and legal scholars who are concerned about the implications for free speech in Kenya. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences not only for Morara Kebaso but also for the broader movement of individuals who use digital platforms to demand transparency and accountability from those in power.
In the meantime, Kebaso remains committed to his cause. Following his release on Ksh. 500,000 cash bail, he expressed confidence that the truth would prevail. “This is not about me,” he said. “It is about the future of our country and the need to hold our leaders accountable. I will continue my work, no matter the cost.”
Conclusion
The case of Morara Kebaso raises critical questions about the intersection of free speech, political activism, and the use of digital platforms in Kenya. While the charges of cyber harassment are serious, the defense has positioned the case as a broader fight for the protection of free expression. As the legal battle unfolds, it will provide important insights into how Kenya’s legal system addresses the complex challenges posed by the digital age.
