When Rose Njeri was first arrested for creating a system that allowed people to send emails to accept or reject the Finance Bill 2025, many of us wondered what else she had done to warrant such action. The arrest, which occurred over a long weekend that included Jamhuri Day, meant she would spend three days in a cell, as Monday was a public holiday. The surprise stemmed from the fact that her system was a standard emailing platform that, in any case, enhanced public participation in the Finance Bill 2025 process.
Then came the charge sheet under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act, one of the most peculiar charge sheets I have ever seen, especially for those who understand what Njeri’s system is and what it does.
Rose Njeri’s Email System
Rose Njeri developed a program hosted at https://civicemail.netlify.app/ that enabled citizens to send emails to [email protected], the official email of the Finance Committee. The system was designed to facilitate communication between the public and the committee, allowing Kenyans to voice their concerns directly. This initiative was a commendable effort to enhance civic engagement through technology.
However, the Kenyan government has charged her under the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act, alleging that her system constitutes an “automatic bot” that interfered with the committee’s operations. According to the charge sheet (Police Case No. 132/112/2025), she was arrested on May 30, 2025, and brought before the Milimani Law Courts on June 3, 2025. The prosecution claims her system disrupted the “normal functioning of the systems,” a vague accusation lacking specificity and evidence.
Understanding the Systems: Email System vs. Automatic Bot
To understand the injustice in this case, we must first clarify the difference between the email system Rose created and the automatic bot system the government accuses her of developing.
Email System for Sending Emails: Rose’s system was a straightforward platform that allowed users to manually send emails to the Finance Committee. It involved a simple interface where users could input their message, subject, and recipient (in this case, the committee’s email). Such systems typically rely on standard email protocols (e.g., SMTP) and require user interaction to initiate each email. There is no automation involved beyond the basic functionality of sending an email, a process akin to using Gmail or Outlook.
Automatic Bot System: In contrast, an automatic bot system operates without human intervention, sending emails based on predefined triggers, schedules, or conditions. These systems often handle large volumes of emails, such as in marketing campaigns or notification services, and can potentially overwhelm a recipient’s inbox if misused. They require complex logic, scheduling mechanisms, and often integration with databases or external APIs.
Rose’s system, as described, was not an automatic bot. It was a user-driven tool designed to empower citizens, not to flood or disrupt the committee’s operations. The government’s claim that her system “interfered with the normal functioning of the systems” is baseless without evidence of mass email campaigns, spam, or malicious intent, none of which have been presented in the charge sheet.
Misuse of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act
When the Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act of 2018 was enacted, we foresaw its potential for misuse by authorities, which is why BAKE and other organizations challenged the Act in court. The case is currently under appeal, and we hope it will be concluded soon.
Meanwhile, the government has repeatedly misused the Act, as we initially feared. It has increasingly been weaponized to target and intimidate innocent citizens for criticizing authorities, and now it is being used to stifle innovation.
In Rose Njeri’s case, the government appears to be exploiting the Act to criminalize a legitimate technological initiative. Her email system was not a cybercrime; it was a tool for civic participation. By mischaracterizing it as an “automatic bot” and charging her under the Act, the government is sending a chilling message to innovators: create at your own risk. This misuse of the law not only undermines the spirit of the Act but also threatens Kenya’s growing tech ecosystem, which relies on creativity and experimentation to thrive.
The Broader Implications for Digital Innovation
Kenya has long positioned itself as a hub for technological innovation in Africa, often referred to as the “Silicon Savannah.” From mobile money platforms like M-Pesa to countless startups, the country has fostered an environment where tech solutions address real-world problems. Rose Njeri’s email system aligns with this tradition, using technology to bridge the gap between citizens and their government. Yet, by charging her under the Cybercrime Act, the government is deterring other innovators from pursuing similar projects.
Imagine a young developer who wants to create a platform for reporting potholes to the County Government or a system for submitting feedback to government agencies. If they see Rose Njeri being prosecuted for a simple email tool, they may abandon their ideas out of fear of legal repercussions. This stifling of innovation could have long-term consequences for Kenya’s tech sector and its ability to compete on a global stage.
