On February 12, the High Court of Kenya struck down Section 95(1)(b) of the Penal Code as unconstitutional. The Section made it a crime to “create a disturbance in a manner likely to cause a breach of peace,” meaning a person could be arrested for causing public commotion, shouting loudly, or behaving in a way police believed might lead to disorder, even if no actual violence occurred. The court declared the offence unconstitutional. The decision immediately barred police from arresting or charging citizens under that section of the Penal Code.

Justice Andrew Bahati Mwamuye delivered the ruling in Nairobi. He found that the law lacked clarity since its wording was vague and overly broad. Moreover, he held that the provision failed to meet constitutional standards of precision. As such, he concluded that it violated the right to freedom of expression protected under Article 33 of Kenya’s Constitution.

The case arose from a petition filed by the Law Society of Kenya. The society challenged the legality of the offence after activist Morara Kebaso was arrested in October 2025 and charged under the former disturbance law. Kebaso had been monitoring government development projects. Prosecutors accused him of conduct likely to breach the peace. He denied wrongdoing and argued that authorities targeted him for exercising his constitutional rights.

The court agreed that the offence created uncertainty, noting that ordinary citizens could not clearly understand what specific conduct the law criminalized. It warned that such ambiguity opened the door to arbitrary enforcement. The judge emphasized that criminal statutes must define offences with precision. Citizens must know, in advance, what behavior attracts punishment.

The ruling carries significant weight for the rule of law as it reinforces the principle of legality. Laws must be clear, just as they must be predictable. The state cannot rely on vague provisions to limit rights. The decision strengthens judicial oversight concerning executive power. It affirms that courts will invalidate statutes that conflict with constitutional guarantees.

The judgment also signals a shift in policing standards. Officers must now rely on clearly defined offences when making arrests. Prosecutors must ensure charges meet constitutional thresholds. Citizens, especially government critics, gain stronger protection against arbitrary detention.

Netizens in Kenya described the ruling as a milestone, as evidenced by their celebratory comments in news posts of the ruling. It narrows the space for misuse of criminal law against dissent. It confirms that constitutional supremacy prevails over outdated statutory language. By voiding the disturbance offence, the High Court has reshaped the balance between state authority and individual liberty. The Constitution remains the ultimate safeguard.