Court Acquits Student Over Alleged President Ruto Death Post
A Kenyan university student has been cleared of charges related to publishing false information online suggesting the death of President William Ruto.
The Milimani Law Courts acquitted 24-year-old David Oaga Mokaya on February 19, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove he was responsible for spreading misleading content about the President.
Mokaya, a student at Moi University and widely known on X as “Landlord,” was arrested in November 2024 after sharing a digitally altered image.
The image, posted on November 13, 2024, depicted a casket draped in the Kenyan flag being escorted by military officers, accompanied by a caption implying it showed President Ruto’s funeral procession.
He faced charges under Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, No. 5 of 2018. The law targets the publication of false information that is likely to cause fear, alarm, or public unrest.
Prosecutors argued that Mokaya’s post misled the public and had the potential to create panic, claiming it crossed the line from satire into criminal behavior.
Despite these claims, the court found there was not enough evidence to directly link Mokaya to the publication of the post. As a result, the charges under the cybercrime law were dismissed, and Mokaya was formally acquitted.
Legal Framework on Criticising or Abusing the President in Kenya
Kenyan law protects freedom of expression while balancing the need to safeguard public order. Article 33 of the Constitution guarantees that every citizen has the right to seek, receive, and share information freely.
However, this right is not absolute and can be limited in cases where such expression could cause harm, panic, or other justifiable risks.
Meanwhile, Article 143 of the Constitution provides a sitting President with personal immunity from civil or criminal cases for actions undertaken while in office. This means that a President cannot be sued or prosecuted for acts performed as part of official duties during their term.
The Penal Code, under Sections 94 and 96, addresses offensive or insulting behavior, but penalties apply mainly if the act causes a breach of the peace or incites violence.
Attempts in the past to criminalize insults against public officials under Section 132 of the Penal Code were struck down by the High Court in 2017.
The court declared Section 132 unconstitutional, arguing it was too vague, overly broad, and unjustifiably limited free speech. This ruling marked a significant shift in how criticism of public officials is treated in Kenya.
More serious offences, such as treason under Section 40 of the Penal Code, remain valid. These laws focus on violent actions or attempts to overthrow the government rather than mere online posts, satire, or insults directed at public figures.
In Mokaya’s case, the court’s decision highlights the fine line between satire, criticism, and criminal liability.
While the law seeks to prevent misinformation that could create public fear, it also reinforces the protection of free expression in a democratic society, ensuring that citizens are not prosecuted for posts that do not directly threaten public safety or order.
The ruling is being seen by legal experts as a reaffirmation of citizens’ right to express opinions online, even when those posts involve public figures, provided they do not incite panic, violence, or unlawful actions.
Join Tutam Official WhatsApp Channel to stay updated on time
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaWT5gSGufImU8R0DO30
