Kenyan Digital Surveillance: The Decline of Privacy and the Growth of Government Authority

Editor’s note: In this piece, Benedict Were, a seasoned communication professional, raises the alarm on the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2025, arguing that it threatens digital freedoms and online anonymity. Drawing from the bill’s provisions and its potential consequences, Were urges Kenyans to critically examine how such legislation could erode civil liberties, silence dissent, and compromise privacy in the digital age.

In today's digital age, where every aspect of our personal, professional, and civic lives relies on connectivity, online anonymity is no longer a luxury but rather a necessary safety net that protects journalists investigating the powerful, citizens participating in democratic discourse, and whistleblowers exposing systemic corruption. This fundamental freedom, however, is seriously threatened by the proposed Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which Aldai MP Marianne Jebet Kitany supports.

However, I am not entirely surprised that this bill originates from Madam Kitany, she has been at the centre of controversy, which has often marked her political path. Despite framing the bill as a measure for enhancing transparency and accountability in internet usage, its provisions reveal a far more troubling agenda.

The bill mandates Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to adopt metered billing systems that assign each subscriber a unique meter number, purportedly for tracking consumption, at least that is how the bill has been portrayed. However, the implications stretch well beyond billing. Most critically, the legislation compels ISPs to submit detailed usage data, including these uniquely identifiable meter numbers, to the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) at least once a year.

The real agenda behind the bill

This provision marks a pivotal shift toward institutionalised digital surveillance. Once internet activity is inextricably linked to individual subscribers and that information is routinely centralised, the capacity for anonymous browsing, and by extension, free expression, instantly diminishes. The regulating authority will be able to track every search query, every visit to a website, and every instance of dissent voiced online, which will then become permanently attributable to a known individual. I do not want to exaggerate the consequences of such a law; its impact on civil liberties is grave.

What we are looking at will lead to self-censorship. With citizens knowing that their digital footprints are traceable and potentially reportable, they will think twice before engaging with politically sensitive content or challenging dominant narratives. The open internet, the space we have long regarded as a crucible for democratic dialogue, activism, and innovation, will be supplanted by an atmosphere of conformity and apprehension.

This threat is particularly acute for journalists, whistleblowers, and civil society actors who rely on secure and discreet communication channels to perform their public-interest work. So, when a bill attempts to link every byte of data to a personal identifier, it fundamentally erodes the safety and confidentiality that such work demands.

Moreover, it invites retaliation, exposes sources, and undermines investigative integrity. But at times, I wonder, when you create a bill today, while in power, do our leaders foresee the long-term consequences? How about the same bill coming to bite them later? This is why we need sobriety while drafting our laws, but for this, it's already too bad in our mouths.

Moreover, the implications for vulnerable populations cannot be overstated; people living with PLWHIV, survivors of gender-based violence, and those seeking support for sensitive health or personal matters often turn to digital platforms for community, resources, and protection. What will now become of them if we start preying on their digital footprints? Some will stop seeking lifesaving med*cation through telemedicine and related sites; therefore, stripping anonymity from these users exposes them to new layers of risk that range from social stigma to targeted harassment and violence.

A call for transparent lawmaking

Proponents of the bill may argue that it aims to curb cybercrime, enhance consumer protection, or ensure fair billing practices. These objectives are not inherently objectionable. However, the measures proposed are disproportionate and fail the test of necessity and proportionality, which should guide all interventions in the digital rights space. There are more precise, rights-respecting ways to combat online fraud and abuse, ways that do not require the wholesale compromise of privacy.

Additionally, and most alarmingly, is the opaque manner in which the legislation is being advanced. I firmly believe that a bill with such far-reaching implications for constitutional freedoms and digital rights ought to be subjected to extensive public consultation, rigorous legislative scrutiny, and transparent stakeholder engagement. However, instead of receiving the public attention and education it deserves, it appears poised to move forward without meaningful input from civil society, the media, or the broader public.

I opine that if this bill is enacted in its current form, it will erode the very freedoms that have enabled Kenya to thrive as a regional leader in digital innovation and civic participation. Our growing ecosystem of startups, tech platforms, and digital creatives depends on an internet that remains open, accessible, and secure. Therefore, introducing mechanisms of pervasive surveillance risks stifling not only dissent but progress itself, which we have for years celebrated and have been known for.

The Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2025, must not be allowed to pass without substantial revision; it must never see the light of day if we are serious about progress as a country. What we are looking at now is not merely a regulatory policy, but the future of digital freedom in Kenya.

Let us all open our eyes and scrutinise this bill thoroughly, because once the internet becomes a monitored space where free expression is curtailed. Privacy is compromised; we must confront a sobering reality: a nation cannot claim to be truly free when its citizens are not free online.

The author is Benedict Were, a communication professional with over eight years of experience in strategic communication.

Views expressed are solely those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of TUKO.co.ke.

Proofreading by Jackson Otukho, copy editor at TUKO.co.ke.

Source: TUKO.co.ke