Privacy is often dismissed as a concern for those with “something to hide.” Yet in Kenya today, the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 31 of the 2010 Constitution is under unprecedented strain, not because citizens are doing anything wrong, but because surveillance is quietly becoming normalized.
Digital surveillance refers to the use of technology to monitor, intercept, collect, and analyze digital communications and metadata. This includes tracking phone calls, emails, browsing history, GPS locations, social media activity, biometric data, and CCTV footage. While such tools are often justified in the name of security and efficiency, their unchecked expansion poses serious risks to human dignity, autonomy, and democratic freedoms.
Kenya’s legal framework recognizes privacy as a fundamental human right, protected not only by the Constitution but also by international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Data Protection Act of 2019 sets important standards around consent, transparency, and lawful data processing. Yet in practice, safeguards remain weak, and accountability is often absent.
Recent years have seen growing concerns around state surveillance, particularly targeting journalists, digital activists, and protesters. Security agencies have reportedly monitored social media platforms, tracked online communications, and used digital tools to identify individuals involved in dissent. Telecommunications companies have faced allegations, though denied, that they share subscriber data without adequate judicial oversight, even as they collaborate with law enforcement on national surveillance capacity-building initiatives.
Legislative attempts to regulate online spaces further illustrate this troubling trend. The proposed Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill of 2019 sought to license bloggers and regulate online content, raising fears of censorship. More recently, the 2025 Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill proposes measures such as assigning unique internet identification numbers to users, mandating real-time monitoring of internet usage, collecting extensive personal subscriber data, and introducing age verification for social media through national IDs. Framed as consumer protection reforms, these provisions risk laying the groundwork for mass surveillance infrastructure.
Surveillance does not operate in a vacuum. It has a chilling effect. When people know or suspect that their communications are being monitored, they self-censor. They think twice before organizing protests, speaking out against injustice, or engaging in political debate. This directly undermines freedoms of expression, association, and assembly guaranteed under Articles 33 and 37 of the Constitution.
Corporate surveillance compounds the problem. Global technology companies profit from tracking user behavior, preferences, and routines, often without meaningful consent. These vast data troves are vulnerable to misuse, breaches, and unauthorized state access, turning personal information into a powerful tool of control.
Kenya is not alone. From Egypt to Hungary, digital surveillance has been used to suppress dissent and silence critics. These global patterns offer a stark warning: without strong oversight, surveillance erodes trust, weakens democracy, and entrenches fear.
As Kenya continues its digital transformation, progress must not come at the expense of rights. The real challenge is not choosing between security and privacy, but ensuring that security measures are lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Privacy is not an obstacle to development; it is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right recognized under Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and under several international frameworks, such as Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is under unprecedented strain. Digital surveillance is the use of advanced technology to monitor, intercept, collect, analyze, and store digital communications and metadata. This includes monitoring emails and browsing history, using GPS to track physical locations, and large-scale mining of online activity. In this technologically advanced age, digital surveillance encompasses CCTV, biometric analysis, tracking software, and AI. Despite its benefits, such as increased security and service delivery, as digital surveillance becomes more sophisticated and pervasive, individuals are left increasingly vulnerable to data misuse, profiling, censorship, and even political repression. The right to privacy is deeply entrenched in human dignity, autonomy, and freedom. While surveillance may be justified under the pretext of public safety, its unchecked use can easily evolve into an instrument of control, suppression, and discrimination.
In Kenya, both the Data Protection Act, 2019, and the General Data Protection Regulation, 2018, have set the standard for personal data protection, emphasizing user consent, transparency, and the right to be forgotten. Still, there exists a vulnerability to both government overreach and corporate exploitation. The absence of checks leads to mass monitoring, suppression of dissent, and targeting of individuals. As we further migrate to the digital age, the challenge lies not only in acknowledging the right to privacy but also in actively defending it against increasingly subtle and intrusive forms of surveillance. Therefore, the focus should be on ensuring that the core human right to privacy is never sacrificed for progress.
In Kenya, the current debate centers on striking a balance between national security requirements and individual privacy rights. The absence of a mandatory global accord on the trade of surveillance technology and the varied implementation of current standards across regions. Corporate surveillance is also a major concern. Tech giants like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Apple hold unprecedented volumes of user data. Through “surveillance capitalism,” companies profit from tracking user behavior, preferences, and personal routines often without full user awareness or consent (Zuboff, 2019). While these corporations provide free or low-cost services, the hidden cost is our privacy. Even worse, these vast databases are vulnerable to misuse, data breaches, and unauthorized government access.
Recently, Kenya has witnessed a surge in state surveillance attempts, especially targeting digital activists, journalists, and protesters. Security agencies have reportedly used advanced tools to monitor social media, track online communications, and identify individuals involved in dissent. Some telcos have been implicated in sharing subscriber data without judicial oversight; claims they have vehemently denied despite having collaborative projects with law enforcement to build capacity for national surveillance to “monitor and deter crime and protect national security.”
Adding to these concerns are the Kenyan government’s repeated attempts to amend digital laws to impose stringent regulations on bloggers and social media. For instance, the Kenya Information and Communication (Amendment) Bill 2019, popularly known as the “Social Media Bill,” proposed a mandatory requirement for bloggers to obtain licenses from the Communications Authority of Kenya. Blogging under this Bill included the “collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles on social media platforms.”
In 2025, the government has again attempted to introduce mechanisms to track citizens’ online behavior through the Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposed by Aldai MP Marianne Kitany. This bill introduces considerable loopholes for mass surveillance by:
- Requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to assign unique “internet meter numbers” to every subscriber.
- Mandating ISPs to monitor real-time internet usage and generate consumption-based invoices.
- Compelling ISPs to collect and submit detailed personal subscriber information annually to the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), including full names, national ID numbers, dates of birth, and physical addresses.
- Introducing mandatory age verification for social media users through national IDs.
While presented as a consumer protection and internet billing reform measure, the bill is poses as one of the many attempts by the Kenyan government to create a mass surveillance infrastructure, enabling it to extensively monitor citizens’ online behavior.
Online surveillance by governments facilitates the undermining of several fundamental rights protected under Kenyan law and international human rights frameworks:
- Right to Privacy: Article 31 of Kenya’s Constitution guarantees privacy protection, including communications privacy. The Kenya Data Protection Act, 2019, requires lawful, transparent data processing. Mass surveillance and forced data sharing violate these protections.
- Freedom of Expression and Assembly: Surveillance fosters fear and self-censorship, curtailing free speech and peaceful assembly (Articles 33 and 37 of the Kenyan Constitution). The arrests and disappearances of digital activists facilitated by digital surveillance violate these rights and international standards (UDHR Articles 19, 20; ICCPR).
- Due Process and Protection from Arbitrary Detention: Targeted surveillance can lead to forced arrests and disappearances without judicial process, which breach constitutional and international safeguards.
Globally, Kenya isn’t the only country grappling with the erosion of privacy rights. The local demand for mass and targeted surveillance reflects a global pattern where governments use digital surveillance tools to suppress dissent and control information flow. Similar abuses involving spyware and mass data collection have been documented in countries like Hungary, Egypt, Russia, Iran, and others. These cases demonstrate how unchecked surveillance erodes democratic freedoms and public trust.
The unchecked expansion of surveillance creates opportunities to breach this right through the collection of data without consent, tracking, and the potential for self-censorship, resulting in mistrust and fear.
Tatyana Njenga is Amnesty International Kenya Research Officer and writes in her personal capacity. Email: [email protected]