Software developer and digital rights activist Rose Njeri Tunguru was charged on Tuesday at the Milimani Law Courts with unauthorized interference with a computer system. Her arrest is linked to a website used to mobilize public resistance against the Finance Bill 2025.
According to the charge sheet, Njeri created and hosted https://civicemail.netlify.app, a site that allegedly generated and sent mass emails to the official address of the National Assembly’s Finance Committee. Prosecutors claim this digital campaign disrupted the normal functioning of government communication systems.
The alleged incident occurred on May 19, 2025, at around 8:01 p.m., at an undisclosed location in Kenya. Authorities are charging Njeri under Section 16 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act No. 5 of 2018, which criminalizes unauthorized interference with computer systems.
The charge sheet reads in part:
“Rose Njeri Tunguru: On the 19th day of May, 2025, at 2001 hrs, at an unknown location within the Republic of Kenya, knowingly hosted https://civicemail.netlify.app, which automatically generated and sent mass program emails to [email protected], the official system of the finance committee, thereby interfering with the normal functioning of the systems.”
Defense Team Argument
Her defense team, which includes former Chief Justice David Maraga, DAP-K party leader Eugene Wamalwa, and Wiper party leader Kalonzo Musyoka, strongly opposed the charges, calling them both defective and unconstitutional.
“The charge sheet ought to disclose an offence known in law to enable the accused to be able to take a plea,” the defense counsel argued in court.
Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka challenged the legal grounds of the charge, asking, “If a crime is sensitising fellow Kenyans to say yes or no to the proposed finance bill, what crime is that?”
The defense argued that the charges against Rose Njeri lack legal grounding, insisting that the National Assembly’s email address was specifically created to encourage public participation. As such, any citizen, including Njeri, had the right to use it for feedback on the Finance Bill.
Kalonzo Musyoka pointed out that the charges were vague and failed to meet the constitutional standards outlined in Articles 49 and 50, as well as the procedural requirements under the Criminal Procedure Code. He described the case as an attack on civic engagement and a threat to democratic freedoms.
“The very purpose of that email address was to invite public input, so how can someone be criminalized for using it?” Kalonzo questioned. “We are taken aback at how to respond to a charge when the email address was created specifically to be used by members of the public.”
Maraga Praises Rose Njeri
On his part, Chief Justice Emeritus David Maraga criticized the charge sheet, dismissing it as fundamentally flawed.
“The charge sheet does not disclose a known offence,” Maraga asserted.
He went on to defend Njeri’s actions, arguing that instead of facing criminal charges, she deserved recognition for championing transparency and encouraging civic engagement in the legislative process.
Maraga further cautioned against what he described as a growing pattern of abuse within the justice system, where law enforcement arrests individuals, detains them without just cause, and later presses charges that fail to meet legal standards. He warned that such practices not only violate legal rights but also inflict unnecessary emotional and psychological harm on the accused.
Prosecution Dismisses Defense’s Objections
The prosecution, led by Victor Owiti, pushed back against the defense’s objections, urging the court to allow the case to proceed to trial.
Owiti argued that the defense’s concerns, such as whether Parliament intended the alleged actions to be criminal, should not be resolved at this early stage. Instead, he said, such questions should be examined during the full trial process.
He maintained that the charge sheet met all legal requirements, citing Section 134 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which outlines the standard for providing sufficient detail in criminal charges.
“If you find that the prosecution in the charge sheet has given reasonable information, then you cannot reject the charges,” Owiti told the court.
He asked the magistrate not to dismiss the case on the basis of the preliminary objections raised by the defense team, asserting that the legal process must be allowed to run its course.
“Whether or not we are able to prove these charges, or whether the defense successfully challenges them, is an issue for trial,” he added.
The case has sparked public interest, with digital rights advocates and civil society closely monitoring developments.
Police arrested Njeri on May 30 in South B, Nairobi, and detained her for four days. Her location remained unknown until Tuesday morning, when officers transferred her from Pangani Police Station to court. The charge sheet confirms that DCI cybercrime officers arrested her without a warrant.
Key witnesses listed by the prosecution include digital forensics experts from the Communications Authority of Kenya (CAK), cybercrime analysts, and officers from the DCI’s Serious Crimes Unit.
Milimani Magistrate Geoffrey Onsarigo will on June 20, 2025 rule whether Njeri will take a plea to the charges. The court released her on a personal bond of Ksh100,000.
