NAIROBI, Kenya — A Nairobi court is set to determine the next steps in a criminal case involving Atheist Society of Kenya founder Harrison Mumia, who is accused of publishing false information online in connection with remarks and images relating to President William Ruto.
Mumia was arraigned before the Milimani Law Courts on January 5 and charged under Section 22 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018, a provision that criminalises the publication or circulation of false, misleading or fictitious information likely to cause public alarm, panic or undermine confidence in public institutions.
The case is being heard before Chief Magistrate Dolphina Alego.
Prosecution case
According to the prosecution, Mumia allegedly circulated images and statements on various social media platforms falsely portraying the President as deceased. Prosecutors argue that the content was capable of causing fear, panic and public unrest, particularly given the reach and speed of online platforms.
Court documents indicate that the contested material was widely shared before authorities intervened. The prosecution further told the court that investigations into the matter are ongoing and that the alleged conduct posed a risk to public order and institutional stability.
If convicted under Section 22, an accused person faces a fine of up to Sh5 million, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
Bail terms and court directions
Mumia denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.
The court granted him release on Sh500,000 cash bail or an alternative bond of Sh1 million, pending further directions and the hearing of the case.
The magistrate is expected to issue guidance on the way forward, including timelines for pre-trial directions, disclosure of evidence, and possible constitutional questions raised by the defence.
Through his lawyers, Mumia has strongly disputed the accusations, describing the charges as an abuse of cybercrime laws that have previously faced constitutional scrutiny.
His defence team argues that Section 22 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act has a history of legal challenges over its compatibility with Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression while permitting limited restrictions in the interest of national security, public order and the rights of others.
The defence has indicated it may formally challenge both the constitutionality of the charge and the manner of Mumia’s arrest and detention, as the case progresses.
Mumia was held by officers from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) for four days before being presented in court — a development that drew criticism from civil liberties organisations and free speech advocates.
Rights groups have previously warned that cybercrime provisions risk being used to suppress dissent or satire, particularly in politically sensitive cases involving senior state officials.
While the prosecution insists the case is about protecting public order and preventing misinformation, critics argue that enforcement must be balanced against constitutional protections and judicial oversight.
