Kenya stands at a crossroads in its journey to become Africa’s leading Artificial Intelligence (AI) hub, as outlined in the National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2030. This ambitious vision, launched by the Ministry of Information, Communications, and Technology on March 27, 2025, promises economic growth, social inclusion, and innovation across sectors like agriculture, healthcare, and education. However, the absence of a robust AI regulatory framework, coupled with Kenya’s troubling history of state surveillance and extrajudicial abuses, raises urgent concerns. Without prioritizing human rights and constitutional compliance over nebulous “national security” justifications, Kenya risks deploying AI as a tool for oppression, amplifying surveillance, and increasing extrajudicial threats. The government must act decisively to ensure AI governance upholds the Constitution of Kenya 2010, safeguards fundamental freedoms, and prevents state overreach.
Kenya’s AI Ambitions and Regulatory Gaps
Kenya’s AI strategy aims to position the country as a global leader in ethical and inclusive AI development, with objectives including a robust governance framework and enhanced AI adoption in critical sectors. The strategy, developed through stakeholder consultations from January 14–19, 2025, emphasizes collaboration among government, private sector, academia, and civil society. Yet, as noted by White & Case, Kenya currently lacks specific laws regulating AI, relying instead on existing legislation like the Data Protection Act, 2019, Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018, and Consumer Protection Act, 2012. These laws, while relevant, are insufficient to address AI’s unique challenges, such as algorithmic bias, automated decision-making, and surveillance risks.
The Kenya Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Society Bill, 2023, proposed by the Robotics Society of Kenya, seeks to create a professional body to regulate AI and robotics. However, its restrictive licensing requirements and penalties for non-compliance (up to KES 1 million or two years’ imprisonment) have sparked concerns about stifling innovation and enabling state control, as highlighted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Kenya. Similarly, the Kenya Bureau of Standards’ Draft Information Technology Artificial Intelligence Code of Practice (April 2024) remains unfinalized, leaving a regulatory vacuum. Without clear, rights-centered legislation, AI deployment risks exacerbating existing abuses.
The Shadow of State Surveillance and Extrajudicial Abuses
Kenya’s history of state surveillance and human rights violations casts a long shadow over AI regulation. Privacy International has documented the National Intelligence Service’s (NIS) direct access to telecommunications networks, enabling warrantless interception of communications data. The Security Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014, eroded constitutional protections under Article 31 by expanding NIS powers to monitor communications and detain suspects without judicial oversight. Reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch detail credible allegations of extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and torture by security forces, often justified as counterterrorism measures. In 2024 alone, the Missing Voices Coalition recorded 104 extrajudicial executions and dozens of abductions targeting critics of the #RejectFinanceBill2024 protests.
The integration of AI into Kenya’s surveillance infrastructure amplifies these risks. The National Surveillance, Communication, and Control System (NSCCS), implemented with Safaricom in 2014, uses CCTV, facial recognition, and data analytics to monitor urban areas. International partnerships, including with Israeli intelligence firms, have bolstered this system, raising concerns about data sovereignty and privacy. A 2023 exposé by Nation Media Group revealed law enforcement’s use of mobile phone metadata for covert tracking, often without warrants. The deployment of AI tools like Lumirax AI, flagged by X users as a potential surveillance threat, could further entrench these practices, enabling real-time profiling, predictive policing, and suppression of dissent.
Human Rights and Constitutional Imperatives
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 provides a robust framework to counter these threats. Article 31 guarantees the right to privacy, while Article 47 ensures fair administrative action. The Data Protection Act, 2019, recognizes the right not to be subject to automated decision-making with significant legal effects, aligning with global standards like the EU AI Act. UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (2021), endorsed by Kenya, emphasizes human rights, transparency, and accountability in AI governance. ICJ Kenya underscores that AI regulation must prioritize these principles to prevent violations of dignity and fundamental freedoms.
Unregulated AI deployment threatens constitutional protections in several ways:
• Privacy Violations: AI-driven surveillance, such as facial recognition and predictive analytics, risks mass profiling and unwarranted intrusion, violating Article 31.
• Due Process: Automated decision-making in policing or intelligence could bypass judicial oversight, undermining Articles 49 and 50.
• Freedom of Expression and Assembly: AI tools targeting activists, as seen in 2024’s protest crackdowns, threaten Articles 33 and 37, stifling dissent.
• Discrimination: Algorithmic bias, if unaddressed, could perpetuate ethnic or socio-economic profiling, contravening Article 27.
National security justifications, often invoked to expand surveillance, must not override these rights. As Kenyan courts have ruled, security cannot trump fundamental freedoms (Republic vs. KRA Ex-Parte Cooper K-Brand Limited, 2016). The state’s failure to investigate abuses, as noted by the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), underscores the need for AI regulation to
enforce accountability, not enable impunity.
A Rights-Centered Path Forward
To ensure AI serves Kenyans without becoming a tool of oppression, the government must prioritize human rights and constitutional compliance in its regulatory framework. The following actions are critical:
1. Enact Comprehensive AI Legislation: Parliament should fast-track a standalone AI law, informed by public participation as mandated by the Kenya Public Policy Handbook 2020. This law must:
o Prohibit warrantless AI-driven surveillance and mandate judicial oversight.
o Enforce transparency in AI systems, requiring public disclosure of their use in security operations.
o Address algorithmic bias through mandatory impact assessments, as recommended by UNESCO.
o Align with the Data Protection Act to safeguard privacy and limit automated decision-making.
2. Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms: The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner should be empowered to regulate AI systems, with authority to audit state and private sector deployments. An independent AI ethics board, comprising civil society and technical
experts, should monitor compliance.
3. Reform Surveillance Practices: The NIS and National Police Service must adhere to constitutional warrant requirements for surveillance, as stipulated in the Kenya Information and Communications Regulations, 2010. International partnerships, such as those with Israeli firms, should be scrutinized to protect data sovereignty.
4. Protect Dissent and Whistleblowers: AI regulation must safeguard freedoms of expression and assembly, preventing tools like Lumirax AI from targeting activists. The Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2023, should be enacted to protect those exposing surveillance abuses.
5. Engage Global Standards: Kenya should align with the EU AI Act’s risk-based approach and UNESCO’s ethical principles, ensuring AI systems are categorized by their potential to harm human rights. Collaboration with international bodies, as proposed in the AI strategy, can bolster responsible governance.
Conclusion
Kenya’s AI aspirations hold immense promise, but the allure of national security cannot justify unchecked surveillance or extrajudicial abuses. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2030 must be underpinned by a regulatory framework that centers human rights and constitutional compliance. By enacting robust legislation, strengthening oversight, and reforming surveillance practices, Kenya can harness AI’s potential while protecting its citizens from state overreach. Failure to act risks turning AI into a weapon against democracy, perpetuating the cycle of abductions, killings, and intimidation documented by human rights groups. The government must heed the Constitution’s call to uphold dignity, freedom, and justice, ensuring AI serves as a tool for progress, not oppression.