By Were Kelly | August 5, 2025
Nairobi — The High Court has rejected a request by digital rights organization Paradigm Initiative (PIN) to join a landmark data protection case against X Corp (formerly Twitter) as a friend of the court (amicus curiae), citing concerns of partisanship.
The case, filed by Kenyan citizen Felix Kibet, seeks to compel X Corp and several government agencies—including the Attorney General, Communication Authority of Kenya, Kenya Film Classification Board, National Cohesion & Integration Commission, and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner—to enforce stricter controls on social media. Kibet’s petition calls for the deletion of Kenyan accounts using aliases or pseudonyms, removal of content deemed pornographic, lewd, or hateful, and for social platforms to be monitored for constitutional compliance.
Paradigm Initiative sought to be admitted as an amicus curiae, arguing the petition raised novel and complex issues around digital anonymity, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy. It highlighted its expertise in these areas and stated it could provide neutral, informed perspectives drawn from comparative international and local legal frameworks.
However, the petitioner and the Communication Authority of Kenya opposed the application, asserting that PIN had taken sides on the issues raised in the petition.
In its ruling, the court referenced the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemu & Others, which outlines strict criteria for amicus briefs—emphasizing neutrality, novelty, and legal objectivity.
While acknowledging PIN’s expertise, the judge concluded that the organization had expressed partisan views on digital rights matters relevant to the case, including in its own published reports. The court specifically pointed to a publication titled Devolved Impunity – The State of Safety and Security of Bloggers in Kenya as evidence of bias.
“The brief may be reasonably interpreted as advocating for one side,” the court stated. “The application has failed the Supreme Court’s test… there is a reasonable perception of partisanship based on the applicant’s public stance and prior commentary.”
The court’s decision underlines the increasing legal scrutiny surrounding digital rights, freedom of expression, and privacy in Kenya—especially as global tech giants face mounting pressure over their role in public discourse and user safety.
With PIN’s application dismissed, the case proceeds without its input as pressure mounts on courts and regulators to define the boundaries of digital speech and accountability in the country’s rapidly evolving online space
