Prison Warder Faces Cybercrime Charges for Allegedly Linking Kenyan Executive to Abductions
Nairobi, Kenya – A prison warder stationed at Kamiti Maximum Prison has been formally charged with publishing false information and committing cybercrime offenses, stemming from a social media post that allegedly linked the Kenyan executive branch to the abduction of government critics. Jackson Kuria Kihara, also known as Cop Shakur, appeared before Milimani Chief Magistrate Lucas Onyina on Monday to answer to the charges.
The charges revolve around a post published on X (formerly Twitter) on January 11, 2025, in which Mr. Kihara allegedly questioned the legal basis for the purported abductions and implicated a cabinet secretary, referring to them as an "upcoming dictator" and accusing them of orchestrating the abductions alongside President Ruto. The prosecution contends that Mr. Kihara knowingly disseminated false information intended to incite panic among Kenyan citizens.
The specific charge against Mr. Kihara falls under Section 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act No. 5 of 2018, which carries a potential penalty of a fine not exceeding Sh5 million or a jail term of up to 10 years upon conviction. Mr. Kihara pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Defense lawyers James Ong’amo and Ian Mutiso successfully applied for Mr. Kihara’s release on bond, arguing that he is a civil servant and a member of a disciplined force who understands the implications of failing to appear for trial. While the prosecution did not oppose bail, they urged the court to consider the prevailing climate of social media misuse to depict the government negatively. The defense countered by emphasizing the right to freedom of expression and asserting that the charges did not name specific individuals to justify stringent bail conditions.
Mr. Mutiso further highlighted the context of Mr. Kihara’s arrest, noting that it followed widespread social media outcry against the alleged abductions of government critics. Magistrate Onyina granted Mr. Kihara release on a Sh100,000 bond with an alternative cash bail of Sh50,000. The case will be mentioned on February 17, 2025, for pre-trial directions.
This case emerges amidst heightened tensions surrounding allegations of government-sanctioned abductions and crackdowns on dissent. Mr. Kihara’s alleged involvement in the June 2024 anti-government protests, which resulted in fatalities, abductions, and property damage, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. He had been in custody at Muthaiga Police Station since January 16, 2025, following his arrest by officers from the Serious Crimes Unit of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) on January 15.
The arrest occurred shortly after Interior Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen issued a stern warning against social media abuse, threatening legal action against those spreading misinformation or inciting unrest. The case against Mr. Kihara is likely to be closely watched as it unfolds, with implications for freedom of expression and the government’s response to online criticism. It also underscores the increasing scrutiny of social media activity in Kenya and the potential legal ramifications for users who publish content deemed false or inflammatory.
The ongoing debate revolves around the balance between protecting national security and upholding the fundamental right to freedom of expression. While the government maintains the need to curb the spread of misinformation and incitement, critics argue that such measures could be used to stifle legitimate dissent and restrict democratic discourse. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future cases involving online speech and its regulation in Kenya.
Mr. Kihara’s background as a prison warder adds another dimension to the case, raising questions about potential internal dissent within the security forces. His alleged participation in the anti-government protests suggests a level of dissatisfaction with the current administration within the ranks of law enforcement. This could have broader implications for the government’s efforts to maintain stability and control.
The prosecution’s argument regarding the need for stringent bail conditions reflects the government’s concern over the perceived misuse of social media to spread negative narratives and undermine public trust. However, the defense’s emphasis on freedom of expression highlights the importance of protecting this fundamental right, even in the face of national security concerns.
The magistrate’s decision to grant Mr. Kihara bail suggests a recognition of the need to balance these competing interests. It remains to be seen how the case will progress and what implications it will have for the broader landscape of online speech and political dissent in Kenya. The trial is likely to attract significant public attention and further fuel the ongoing debate about the relationship between the government and its critics.
