Aasai

The High Court of Kenya has officially annulled a directive issued by the Communications Authority (CA) and the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) that required mandatory submission of International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers. The courts decision was prompted by a petition from Katiba Institute, a legal advocacy organization, which argued that the directive was unlawful and infringed upon constitutional rights. The judgment now prevents both government bodies from carrying out or enforcing any activities related to the directive.

The controversial directive was introduced in 2023 as part of a broader plan to regulate the mobile phone market and combat illegal trade. According to the KRA’s guidelines, all importers of mobile phones were required to include IMEI numbers in their customs declarations. Moreover, passengers arriving into Kenya, regardless of purpose, were expected to declare the IMEI numbers of all mobile phones in their possession at entry points. The directive was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025.

The government defended this initiative as a measure to reduce rampant tax evasion and curb the importation of counterfeit and unregistered devices. Officials stated that tracking IMEI numbers would help identify phones brought in illegally, avoiding revenue loss. However, critics argued that the government was overstepping its mandate by attempting to impose such regulations without first seeking approval from Parliament. Katiba Institute maintained that proper legislative procedures were ignored.

Katiba Institute raised fundamental questions about data protection, surveillance, and abuse of authority. In their petition, they claimed that the IMEI directive granted the government the power to monitor citizens without their knowledge or consent. Since IMEI numbers are unique to each mobile device, they allow service providers or authorities to trace a phone’s location, monitor calls, and even access private communication histories—activities that pose serious threats to individual privacy.

The petition further argued that creating a national database of IMEI numbers without adequate checks and balances was dangerous. Katiba emphasized that the move essentially laid the groundwork for state surveillance, enabling authorities to track and monitor users at any time. This, they warned, could lead to the suppression of freedoms such as speech, expression, media independence, and political participation. It also risked eroding public trust in digital communication.

The Institute expressed deep concern over how the IMEI data would be managed. Questions were raised about who would control the database, who could access the information, and what security protocols would be in place to prevent misuse. The absence of clear guidelines or protective legislation, they argued, exposed citizens to political retaliation, identity theft, or targeted oppression—particularly against activists, journalists, and government critics.

In its court submissions, Katiba painted a chilling picture of a state sliding toward authoritarianism. The petition stated that unchecked data collection could become a tool for silencing dissent through surveillance, harassment, or worse—abductions and extrajudicial actions. They warned that without stringent safeguards, Kenya could see its democracy undermined under the veil of regulation.

After reviewing the petition and supporting arguments, Justice Chacha Mwita ruled that the directives issued by the CA and KRA were unconstitutional. The court subsequently quashed the notices and barred the authorities from implementing or acting upon them. This ruling was a significant win for privacy rights and reaffirmed that all government actions must be firmly rooted in law and respectful of constitutional freedoms.