When we headed to the Court of Appeal to challenge the draconian provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (CMCA) of 2018, we knew we weren’t just fighting for corporate media houses or prominent political commentators. We were fighting for ordinary Kenyans, the digital warriors, the social media enthusiasts, and the citizens in every corner of this country who use their voices online to question power.
Yesterday, June 10, 2026, we witnessed the direct, life-changing impact of that legal battle.
In a landmark decision at the Maralal Magistrate Court in Samburu County, Hon. Temba A. Sitati dropped all criminal charges against Francis Lesilampa. Why? Because the law the state used to arrest him no longer exists.
This is a massive win for free speech, and it proves exactly why our historic victory on March 6, 2026—where the Court of Appeal struck down Sections 22 and 23 of the CMCA, was so critical.
Francis Lesilampa’s ordeal began in July 2025. He was dragged to court, forced to pay a Ksh. 20,000 cash bail, and stared down the barrel of a potential 10-year prison sentence or a crippling Ksh. 5 million fine.
His crime? He posted a satirical, fabricated M-Pesa transaction text on the Samburu Digital Network Facebook forum, implying that Samburu County Governor Jonathan Lelelit had sent him Kshs 7,000 to compromise his political stance. The Governor took offense, the police were called, and the state swiftly charged Francis under Section 23 for “publishing false information” likely to discredit a person’s reputation.
For nearly a year, Francis was subjected to the anxiety of a criminal trial. But while his case was dragging on, BAKE was in Nairobi fighting the root of the problem.
As we shared in our analysis back in March, the Court of Appeal completely agreed with our position that Sections 22 and 23 were being weaponized by the powerful to silence criticism. Justices Patrick Kiage, Aggrey Muchelule, and Weldon Korir rightfully termed these provisions “unguided missiles” that cast too wide a net, criminalizing innocent forwarders and acting as a state-sponsored “referee of truth.”
The appellate court fundamentally declared that in a free and democratic society, the state cannot use handcuffs to police the truth or shield politicians from public ridicule.
Armed with our Court of Appeal precedent, Francis’s advocate, Mr. Lenkidi Mpapa, moved the court to terminate the proceedings.
In a brilliant display of judicial fidelity, Senior Principal Magistrate Hon. T.A. Sitati upheld the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege – no crime without law). The Magistrate noted that while the charges against Francis were technically active when he took his plea in 2025, the moment BAKE won its appeal on March 6, 2026, the offense evaporated from Kenyan law.
The Magistrate noted: “Consequently, any further prosecution of the accused person in the present case would be a perpetuation and an administration of grave and irreparable injustice on him.”
With those words, Francis was acquitted, his cash bail was refunded, and he walked out of court a free man.
While we are celebrating Francis’s freedom today, we must reiterate what we cautioned when Sections 22 and 23 were first scrapped: Free speech does not mean absolute freedom from consequences.
Here is what the post-Section 22/23 landscape actually looks like for Kenyan netizens:
- The Shift to Civil Courts: If you publish outright lies that damage a politician’s or a citizen’s reputation, they can still sue you. However, it is now a civil defamation matter, not a criminal case. They must hire their own lawyers and sue you for financial damages; they can no longer use the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) and public prosecutors to throw you in jail.
- The Burden of Verification: As content creators, bloggers, and social media users, the responsibility now falls squarely on us. We must maintain high ethical standards, verify information before sharing, and ensure that our platforms are spaces for robust, honest debate, not malicious slander.
- Other Threats Remain Active: Let’s not celebrate too early. While we successfully killed Sections 22 and 23, the state still holds sweeping investigative powers under Sections 48 to 53 of the CMCA. Police can still search your devices and conduct surveillance under court warrants. Furthermore, laws against cyber-harassment (Section 27) are still very much active.
Francis Lesilampa’s acquittal is a beautiful reminder of why digital rights advocacy matters. A victory won in a Nairobi courtroom has protected an ordinary youth on a Facebook forum in Samburu County.
We at BAKE will continue to stand on the frontlines, ensuring that the internet remains an open, democratic, and safe space for expression. We are currently fighting other provisions of the Cybercrimes Act in the Supreme Court and the Cybercrimes (Amendment Act) in the High Court.
Read the full judgment HERE.