Kenyan software developer and digital rights advocate Rose Njeri has been released on a personal bond of Ksh 100,000 following her arraignment in Nairobi on charges tied to alleged cyber offenses linked to a civic tech platform she developed.
Njeri’s arrest last Friday, which resulted in her being held in police custody for nearly three days without arraignment, has triggered widespread public concern and mobilized political, legal, and civil society figures.
The case stems from Njeri’s development of an online tool allowing Kenyans to digitally submit objections to the controversial 2025 Finance Bill, currently under parliamentary consideration. Authorities allege that the tool facilitated mass emailing to official parliamentary inboxes, thereby interfering with normal IT systems—a claim her legal team strongly disputes.
Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo presided over Tuesday’s court proceedings, setting June 20 as the date to determine whether Njeri will formally answer to the charges. The magistrate released her on a personal bond without requiring surety, acknowledging the case’s public interest and the defense’s argument for constitutional protections.
Njeri has not yet taken a plea, and her legal team is seeking a full dismissal of the charges on constitutional grounds.
Digital Protest or System Sabotage?
According to court documents, Njeri is accused of unauthorized interference with computer systems under Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018. Prosecutors allege that the platform she created—**https://civic-email.vercel.app/**—flooded email accounts tied to the National Assembly’s Finance Committee, allegedly disrupting their operations.
The prosecution claims this amounts to digital sabotage.
However, her defense team, which includes prominent legal minds such as former Chief Justice David Maraga, Senior Counsel Kalonzo Musyoka, John Khaminwa, Eugene Wamalwa, and Eric Theuri, argues that Njeri was exercising her constitutional rights.
“This is a case of criminalizing civic participation,” said one defense counsel outside court. “The public email address used was specifically designated for submissions on the Finance Bill. Using it cannot constitute a crime.”
72-Hour Detention Without Charges Draws Criticism
Njeri’s arrest on May 30 and subsequent detention at Pangani Police Station without being presented in court within the legal 24-hour window drew sharp condemnation. Over the Madaraka Day weekend, prominent activists, lawyers, and even presidential hopeful Okiya Omtatah attempted to visit her. Access was initially denied, leading to a standoff outside the station.
The Law Society of Kenya (LSK), led by President Faith Odhiambo, also criticized what it described as opaque detention practices and potential procedural violations.
“It is unacceptable for someone to be held without clear communication or access to legal counsel,” Odhiambo stated. “The legal process must respect rights even when investigating alleged cyber offenses.”
Broader Implications for Civic Tech and Free Expression
Njeri’s case has sparked debate about the boundaries between civic activism in the digital age and state regulation of cyberspace. As civic technology platforms become more prevalent in policy engagement, legal scholars warn of the risks of outdated laws being used to stifle innovation and participation.
Legal experts note that while Kenya’s cybercrime law aims to protect digital infrastructure, its application in Njeri’s case could set troubling precedents for freedom of expression and public dissent.
Civil society organizations, including Article 19 East Africa and Amnesty Kenya, have issued statements expressing concern about what they see as an attempt to criminalize legitimate political expression.
Outside the courthouse, supporters waved placards and chanted slogans in support of Njeri, calling for the charges to be dropped and demanding digital rights protections be strengthened.
Meanwhile, her defense team has called for the immediate return of all confiscated electronic devices, stating that any evidence obtained through an unlawful search should be deemed inadmissible.
