In early February 2026, Kenyan civil society actors moved to court in a landmark effort to subject the deployment of high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems to judicial oversight. The case, filed at the Kerugoya High Court, raises fundamental questions about constitutional rights, data protection, and the pace at which emerging technologies are being operationalized by the state.
The petition was filed by John Wangal, Peter Agoro, and Antony Manyara against the Cabinet Secretary for ICT and the Principal Secretary in the State Department for ICT. It is grounded in Articles 22, 23, and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010), which provide for the enforcement of fundamental rights and outline the principles guiding judicial authority.
On February 5, 2026, Justice Edward M. Muriithi certified the matter as urgent, acknowledging the constitutional significance of the issues raised. However, the Court declined to issue immediate conservatory orders halting AI deployment, noting that the relief sought was too broad to be granted without first hearing from the government.
Key Constitutional and Governance Concerns
At the heart of the petition is the argument that Kenya is witnessing a rapid and largely unregulated rollout of AI technologies that could pose an imminent threat to constitutional rights. The petitioners point to several risk areas:
Privacy and Surveillance:
The activists argue that AI systems such as facial recognition, biometric identification, and predictive analytics are being deployed without the legally required Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) under the Data Protection Act, 2019. This, they contend, exposes citizens to unlawful surveillance and misuse of personal data.
Electoral Integrity Ahead of 2027:
A major concern relates to the upcoming 2027 General Elections, with fears that unregulated AI could facilitate deepfakes, automated disinformation campaigns, and algorithmic interference in democratic processes.
Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination:
The petition highlights the risk of AI systems entrenching or amplifying bias, particularly against vulnerable groups, in critical sectors such as employment, education, access to services, and consumer protection.
Regulatory and Institutional Gaps:
According to the petitioners, the government is authorizing or operationalizing AI technologies in the absence of comprehensive legal, regulatory, and institutional safeguards, creating a governance vacuum around high-risk systems.
The Broader “High-Risk AI” Context in Kenya
The case reflects growing alignment with international approaches to AI governance, including concepts found in frameworks such as the EU AI Act, which categorizes certain applications as “high-risk.” In Kenya, this concern is underscored by recent developments:
In November 2025, a Kenyan court declared the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation’s mandatory facial recognition attendance system unconstitutional, citing lack of consent and failure to conduct impact assessments. At the same time, the government is still in the process of developing a National AI and Emerging Technologies Policy, with stakeholder consultations ongoing as recently as February 2026—raising concerns that deployments are outpacing policy and lawmaking.
Infrastructure limitations further complicate the picture. Kenya reportedly has 19 data centers, but only two are considered fully AI-capable, raising questions around data sovereignty, cross-border data transfers, and the security of sensitive datasets processed outside the country.
What Comes Next
The High Court has ordered that the respondents be formally served with the petition. A substantive hearing is scheduled for February 19, 2026, at which the Court will consider whether to issue conservatory orders temporarily halting the deployment of high-risk AI systems pending determination of the main case.
Regardless of the outcome, the case marks a critical moment for AI governance in Kenya, signaling an increasing demand for transparency, accountability, and rights-based oversight as the country navigates the adoption of powerful emerging technologies.
Case Snapshot
- Petitioners: John Wangal, Peter Agoro, Antony Manyara
- Respondents: Cabinet Secretary for ICT; Principal Secretary, State Department for ICT
- Presiding Judge: Justice Edward M. Muriithi
- Next Hearing: February 19, 2026