By Cherie Oyier
In the technology sector and especially for the sector players focusing on safety and digitally assisted, aggravated or amplified violence, one of the greatest concerns has always been the global nature of the internet and how that plays into shielding perpetrators from accountability. As a result, numerous reports on technology facilitated gender-based violence(TFGBV) have anticipated situations where countries are not able to bring perpetrators who are not physically present in their jurisdictions to book.
These concerns have come full circle and at a grand scale with the activities of the Russian who has now been identified as Vladislav Luilkov coming to light. If you have been living under a rock since 14th February 2026, let me bring you up to speed quickly on these events. On 14th February as the world was celebrating Valentines Day, Vladislav decided to release videos he had taken using his Ray Ban Smart Meta glasses. These are videos he took without the consent or knowledge of the subjects (women) who he met in public places and invited back into hotel rooms.
The online platform, which now also acts as the court of public opinion, has since been flooded with different opinions on the character of both the perpetrator and the women. In this article we will focus on what is important, which is that the individuals whose images were shared were harmed through the non-consensual recording and publication of their images. Hence, are there laws that sufficiently apply to these present circumstances in Kenya to ensure that those harmed get justice and the perpetrator are held accountable?
Relevant Legal Frameworks Addressing TFGBV
In 2025, we at KICTANet conducted a research study on existing laws and regulations to establish the extent to which they address TFGBV. This 2025 report examines 10 legislative frameworks including the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, the Penal Code, the Data Protection Act and the Sexual Offences Act. It further addressed issues pertinent to this case such as international cooperation in investigation of TFGBV cases to ensure perpetrators are held accountable for their actions regardless of whether they are within the Kenyan jurisdiction or not.
To get my insights on the data protection issues this case raises, read my previous article here. Both the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act and the Penal Code are directly relevant as they both attempt to address issues of non-consensual recording and distribution of intimate images. Sections 37 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act makes it an offense to publish or distribute or make a digital depiction available for distribution or downloading through a telecommunication network or through any other means of transferring data to a computer, the intimate or obscene images of another person. This section imposes a fine of Kshs. 200,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years on a person found guilty of the offence.
Section 37 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act is somewhat similar to section 181 (1) of the Penal Code which, though does not make reference to use of technologies, criminalises traffic in obscene publications.
An evaluation of the applicability of these two laws in the research report referenced above brought to the fore critical issues. First, the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act does not define what “obscene” or “intimate” mean under section 37. This lack of specificity leaves the section open to broad and vague interpretations offending the requirement for legal certainty in criminal law. While the High Court in its 2020 decision addressing the wording in section 37 in Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) v Attorney General & Others, held that;
“It should further be noted, the words are used descriptively in reference to a state of affair and are clear and not vague … It thus follows that there cannot be a ‘one fits all approach’ and therefore it would not be practicable to give one accepted legal definition of what constitutes ‘obscene’ and ‘intimate’. The words will therefore be construed on a case to case basis through interpretation by the courts…”,
Our report recommends that some statutory guidance on basic elements of these terms would help to streamline judicial application and interpretation.
Further, vague and ambiguously couched provisions can easily be used to the advantage of accused persons due to the wide interpretation that they present. Hence such guidelines are required to ensure specificity of the law.
Adequate Compensation or Consequences for Violating the Law
Our 2023 research titled Unmasking Trolls highlighted the gravity of the impact of TFGBV on victims and survivors. Victims and survivors suffer psychological trauma, loss of income, ostracization by family and society, public shaming, physical harm among other harms. It is imperative that all these harms are taken into consideration when considering compensation or consequence. The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act provides for a fine of Kshs. 200,000 or prison term of not more than 2 years. Taking this case in consideration, and the fact that the videos were monetised on certain platforms, these consequences may not be adequate or even deterrent for future offenders.
A review of the fine and prison term should therefore be considered based on all relevant factors.
Notable however, is that the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act provides for further remedies including compensation and forfeiture of property. Further, section 175(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers criminal courts to award compensations upon convictions in addition to a prison sentence or fine. However, these powers are not often used in criminal courts in Kenya due to the fact that our criminal justice system is based on common law traditions which are penal in nature i.e. focused on punishment to the party found guilty. However, it is high time, these powers are exercised to ensure that victims are adequately compensated and returned to their original status before the harm they suffered. Returned to original status would include compensation to enable victims and survivors afford psychosocial support and therapy, compensation for loss of income if they are social media influencers for instance or for reputational damage etc.
Extradition and International Cooperation
Due to the global nature of the internet, TFGBV can be committed by individuals within the country or beyond our borders or even still by individuals within our borders who then leave as is in this case.
Kenya’s Extradition (Contiguous and Foreign Countries) Act and the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act provides lawful guidance on arrest, detention and surrender of fugitive criminals. Hence these laws allow for Kenya, upon formal request by a requesting nation, to extradite fugitive criminals to the state which makes such a request. Where the fugitive is not a Kenyan national and is already outside the jurisdiction the person can only be extradited back to Kenya to answer for their offences if Kenya has an existing extradition treaty, bilateral agreement or on the basis of reciprocity. In this case the offender has been identified as a Russian citizen, according to media reports. Kenya and Russia currently do not have a bilateral extradition treaty further complicating this situation. Our saving grace may be that both Kenya and Russia and members of Interpol and thus may use those diplomatic channels or Mutual Legal Assistance to cooperate on the investigation, arrest and trial of the individual.
Conclusion
In view of the above, it is evident that a review of our existing laws to adequately and specifically address the forms, nature, and consequences of TFGBV is required. Further, we need to rethink international cooperation when dealing with perpetrators of TFGBV who might not be physically within the jurisdiction. A survivor centered approach should be adopted when considering these issues in order to ensure the best interests of the survivors while also ensuring just and fair proceedings for offenders.