Chuka University law student to stand trial over TikTok

A Chuka University law student has pleaded not guilty to charges of publishing alleged offensive content targeting President William Ruto and members of the First Family.
The Milimani Law Courts allowed the accused to withdraw an earlier guilty plea, paving the way for a full trial.
The case is expected to examine the intersection between freedom of expression and criminal liability for online speech in Kenya.

A Chuka University law student is set to face trial after pleading not guilty to charges of allegedly publishing offensive content against President William Ruto and members of the First Family on TikTok, in a case expected to test the balance between freedom of expression and criminal liability for online speech.

Hesbon Mauti Thomas, a law student at Chuka University, appeared before the Milimani Law Courts on Friday, where he formally denied the charges after successfully withdrawing an earlier guilty plea. The court’s decision marked a significant turn in the proceedings, paving the way for a full hearing in which prosecutors will be required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) alleges that on June 25, 2026, Mauti used a TikTok account identified as PROVIDENT@bonifaceaminga to publish a video containing abusive and insulting remarks directed at President William Ruto, his son George Ruto and one of the President’s daughters.

According to the charge sheet presented before the court, the prosecution contends that the alleged remarks were likely to provoke a breach of peace, an offence punishable under Section 94(1) of the Penal Code, which criminalises the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words in circumstances likely to disturb public order.

Defence seeks plea change

The case took a significant turn when defence lawyer Danstan Omari urged the court to allow his client to change his plea, arguing that the initial guilty plea had been entered without legal representation.

Omari submitted that the student pleaded guilty out of fear that contesting the charges would result in the denial of bail.

The defence further told the court that Mauti is a financially struggling student pursuing his legal studies through church sponsorship. Omari said the accused has no independent source of income and depends entirely on well-wishers to continue with his education.

He added that he had taken up the student’s defence on a pro bono basis and personally facilitated the payment of bail to secure his release.

After considering the application, Milimani Principal Magistrate Geoffrey Onsaringo allowed the accused to withdraw the earlier plea and substitute it with a plea of not guilty.

The magistrate ordered that Mauti be released on a cash bail of KSh5,000 pending the hearing and determination of the case.

The prosecution is expected to rely on digital evidence, including the disputed TikTok video and forensic analysis, to establish that the accused published the alleged content and that it falls within the scope of the offence charged.

Constitutional questions

The proceedings have attracted public interest because they touch on broader constitutional questions surrounding the regulation of online speech in Kenya.

The case comes at a time when courts continue to scrutinise the application of criminal laws to digital communication following previous constitutional challenges involving provisions of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act.

Legal experts note that while Article 33 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to freedom of expression, the same provision limits that freedom where speech amounts to propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech or advocacy of hatred.

The court will therefore determine whether the alleged remarks crossed the legal threshold from protected expression to criminal conduct.

Human rights advocates have cautioned against the over-criminalisation of online speech, arguing that criticism of public officials, even when harsh, should ordinarily enjoy constitutional protection unless it clearly violates existing laws.

Others maintain that abusive or threatening statements capable of undermining public order should be addressed through lawful prosecution.

For the prosecution, the trial presents an opportunity to demonstrate that the alleged publication satisfied the legal ingredients required under the Penal Code. For the defence, the proceedings will focus on challenging the evidence, questioning the interpretation of the law and asserting the constitutional protections available to the accused.