NAIROBI, Kenya – The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) has dismissed reports alleging that it used surveillance software to spy on journalists and digital devices, terming the claims “false” and “sensational.”
The response comes after a Friday exposé by the Daily Nation, which cited a report by Canadian internet watchdog Citizen Lab.
The report alleged that DCI operatives had installed FlexiSpy, a commercially available spyware, on the mobile phones of BBC Africa journalists behind the documentary Blood Parliament, shortly after their arrest.
Citizen Lab’s findings raised concerns about privacy breaches and unlawful surveillance by Kenyan security agencies.
In a statement, the DCI refuted the allegations, insisting it operates strictly within the law.
“We want to assure members of the public that the DCI operates strictly within the confines of the law. Our commitment to upholding the rights and privacy of all Kenyans is unwavering, and we do not engage in any activities that compromise these constitutional principles,” the agency said.
MISLEADING CLAIMS BY DAILY NATION – SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 The Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) wishes to address the misleading claims published in today’s Daily Nation regarding alleged surveillance of mobile phones and other digital devices by the DCI. We
The DCI declined to provide details, citing ongoing court proceedings linked to the matter.
Kenya’s security agencies have recently faced growing scrutiny over alleged use of illegal surveillance tools to track critics and protesters.
In June 2025, Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja told a court that officers accessed customer data from the Communications Authority to locate blogger Albert Ojwang’, who later died in police custody.
Reports during the height of anti-government protests also claimed the DCI deployed IT experts to trace individuals accused of organising demonstrations.
Separately, Canadian software developer Mary Maina has sued the Kenyan government for Ksh.290 million over what she described as a botched surveillance contract intended to monitor online activity.
Despite mounting criticism, government officials have consistently maintained that measures used to police online spaces and track suspects are lawful.
