As the deadline for public participation on the Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 passes, a powerful coalition of content creators, digital artists, and non-profit organizations has emerged with a unified message: Regulation must not become a tool for censorship.
While the Bill, currently before the Senate Standing Committee on ICT, is framed as a shield against digital harm, Kenya’s vibrant creative and social sectors fear it may inadvertently dismantle the very innovation it seeks to govern.
For Kenya’s digital creators, the most problematic aspect of the Bill lies in its treatment of synthetic media. Under Section 34, the creation of deepfakes, content where AI is used to manipulate a person’s likeness, could lead to a two-year prison sentence.
Satire and parody are the lifeblood of Kenyan political discourse. If a comedian uses an AI filter to poke fun at a politician, they shouldn’t be looking at a jail cell. As written, this Bill doesn’t know the difference between a malicious fraudster and a TikToker making a joke.
Creatives are demanding a Safe Harbor clause that explicitly protects:
- Political satire and caricature.
- Artistic and experimental digital works.
- Educational and research content.
For startups and independent content creators, the proposed financial penalties are seen as extinction-level threats. The Bill suggests a flat fine of Ksh. 5 million for non-compliance, a figure that may be a rounding error for Big Tech giants but is a death sentence for a local YouTuber or a pre-revenue startup in Eldoret.
“We are essentially telling our young innovators that one technical mistake could bankrupt their entire family,” notes a representative from a startup incubator. The community is pushing for tiered penalties that scale with the size and revenue of the organization, ensuring that the cost of safety is proportionate.
Beyond the creative economy, Kenya’s non-profit sector is raising red flags regarding the Office of the Artificial Intelligence Commissioner. The Bill grants this office broad powers to inspect records and data to ensure compliance.
Human rights defenders argue that without strict judicial oversight, specifically a High Court warrant, this power could be used to infringe on the Right to Privacy (Article 31). There are fears that vulnerable data held by NGOs, including information on whistleblowers or marginalized communities, could be accessed under the guise of an AI audit.
The consensus among these stakeholders is not that AI should be a “wild west,” but rather that the Bill needs to move from a policing mindset to a protection mindset. Key recommendations submitted to the Senate include:
- Human Rights Audits: Requiring AI systems to be checked for tribal or gender bias, rather than just technical checkboxes.
- A One-Stop-Shop Regulator: Preventing compliance fatigue by harmonizing the AI Commissioner’s role with the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC).
- Protection for Ghost Workers: Ensuring the thousands of Kenyans who train global AI models (data annotators) are protected from exploitation.
As the Senate Committee begins to review the submitted memoranda, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Kenya’s status as a regional tech hub depends on a legal framework that is “Pro-Innovation” while remaining “People-Centered.”
For the creatives and NGOs who drive the Silicon Savanna, the goal is simple: a law that treats them as partners in progress, not as suspects in a digital crime.
Find the BAKE submission to the AI Bill HERE.