A few lines of computer code can make a big difference but can get you into trouble in Kenya today. Rose Njeri Tunguru, a 35-year-old mother of two, found this out when her easy-to-use online tool helped people speak to their leaders, turning her from a quiet programmer into a well-known face of digital activism.
On Tuesday, software developer and civic activist Rose Njeri was arraigned in court over cybercrime charges related to a web platform she created and posted on X that allowed Kenyans to send mass emails to the National Assembly’s Finance Committee.
The court released her on a personal bond of Ksh 100,000 and set June 20 as the date to determine whether she will face trial for the alleged offences.
However, video footage showed her smiling, a small gesture of resistance that delighted social media fans. The hashtag #FreeRoseNjeri was coined to raise awareness on her incarceration.
The cybercrime charges against Rose Njeri
The charges against Rose Njeri stem from her creation of a web-based system that automatically generated and sent mass emails to the official email address of the Finance Committee of the National Assembly on May 19. The prosecution alleges that this action constituted unauthorised interference with computer systems, violating Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act No. 5 of 2018. They claim that the influx of emails disrupted the normal functioning of parliamentary communication systems.
Detectives stated that the platform directed bulk emails to the official systems of the Clerk of the National Assembly, which they argue interfered with normal operations. The charge sheet reads: “hosted knowingly made https://civicemail.netlify.app/ that automatically generated and sent mass emails to email protected, thereby interfering with the normal functioning of the systems”.
Defence argues charges violate constitutional rights
Rose Njeri’s defence team, led by former Chief Justice David Maraga and supported by other prominent lawyers, including former Vice President Kalonzo Musyoka, strongly dismissed the charges as baseless and unconstitutional. They argued that Njeri’s actions were a legitimate exercise of her constitutional rights to freedom of expression and public participation.
Maraga told the court that the police arrest was unnecessary and intended to intimidate Njeri: “The police didn’t need to arrest her; they just needed to call her and tell her they wanted to prefer charges against her. Being arrested on Friday, knowing very well that Monday was a public holiday, was just meant to torture her. We pray, your honour that you release her forthwith.”
The defence pointed out that the email address targeted by the platform was publicly designated for citizen feedback on the controversial 2025 Finance Bill, making Njeri’s platform a tool to facilitate public engagement rather than interference. Maraga emphasised: “She should be applauded for having done the work of parliament or the parliamentary committee and the institutions which are there to receive memorandums.”
Controversy erupts over Njeri’s arrest and charges
Njeri’s arrest and charges have sparked significant public debate and political criticism. Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua condemned the government’s actions, accusing the administration of using intimidation tactics to silence dissent ahead of the Finance Bill discussions. He urged Kenyans to defend their freedoms and called for Njeri’s immediate release, stating: “Now, more than ever, Kenyans must remain vigilant. We must speak up for our rights and for each other.”
The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of digital dissent and government accountability in Kenya, raising questions about the balance between cybersecurity laws and citizens’ rights to participate in governance through digital platforms.
Court Proceedings and Next Steps
Rose Njeri did not take a plea during her arraignment, and the court will revisit the case on June 20, 2025, to decide whether she will formally face trial on the cybercrime charges.
Meanwhile, her electronic devices, which were confiscated during the arrest, remain in custody. Her defence team requests their return and argues that any evidence obtained from them should be inadmissible.
The case remains a focal point for discussions on the limits of digital activism and the interpretation of Kenya’s cybercrime laws in the context of public participation and freedom of expression.