“No prima facie case has been established against the accused to warrant placing him on his defence,” Magistrate Ochieng ruled.
KISUMU|23 June 2026 -A Kisumu court has acquitted journalist Agwanda Saye of four charges under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, ruling the law is unconstitutional and that prosecutors failed to establish a case.
Kisumu Senior Principal Magistrate Mary Ochieng on Monday found that Agwanda had no case to answer over allegations of publishing false information about Pinecone Hotel. She acquitted him under Section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The charges were filed under Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018. Magistrate Ochieng said the provision had been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal on 6 March 2026.
“No prima facie case has been established against the accused to warrant placing him on his defence,” Ochieng ruled. “I proceed to find the accused has no case to answer and acquit him.”
The prosecution had called nine witnesses, including police officers and hotel representatives, during the trial. Agwanda was represented by advocate Charles Onyango, who urged the court to rely on the Court of Appeal decision in BAKE vs Attorney General & 6 Others.
In March, the Court of Appeal struck down Sections 22 and 23 of the Cybercrimes Act for criminalizing “false” or misleading information. The judges ruled the sections were overly broad, vague, and violated freedom of expression and media freedom under Article 33(2) of the Constitution.
The court noted that determining “absolute truth” in today’s fast-moving digital environment is difficult, and that existing laws like the National Cohesion and Integration Act already cover harmful speech.
The ruling affirmed that data requests and surveillance powers remain valid for ISPs and tech firms, but must meet strict standards of specificity and proportionality. It shifted responsibility for misinformation to platform governance and moderation policies.
Agwanda’s acquittal is one of the first to directly apply the March Court of Appeal decision in a pending trial.
