Kenya’s high court on Friday stayed the implementation of parts of a controversial security law signed by President Uhuru Kenyatta a fortnight ago.

Eight clauses in the Security Laws (Amendment) Act 2014 were temporarily suspended, pending a Supreme Court decision on a petition filed by the Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) party. 

The opposition went to court after the president signed the act into law, a day after its passage in a chaotic parliamentary vote on December 18. CORD argues in their petition that besides abrogating key civil and political liberties in the Bill of Rights, the manner in which the Bill was passed did not follow “procedures for enacting legislation” and was therefore not “amenable to presidential assent.”

CORD further says the law should be declared null and void because it was passed with no public participation, and that the Senate’s input was disregarded on an issue that touches on the affairs of counties. In his ruling, Justice George Odunga said CORD raises “substantial questions” on the constitutionality of the new anti-terror legislation. 

READ: Kenyatta signs controversial security law

While CORD had petitioned the court to only strike out parts of the legislation, the second petitioner, the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, wanted the whole legislation declared null and void.

Justice Odunga ruled that the court has no jurisdiction at this stage in the hearing to nullify the entire legislation simply because it contains “a few offensive clauses.” He said he used the “guided missile” approach to target only offensive parts of the law to avoid running the risk of being “guilty of usurping legislative mandate” in the guise of determining the constitutionality of the law.

“It is only those provisions which disclose a danger to life and limb or imminent danger to the Bill of Rights at that very moment that the court may be justified in suspending,” Justice Odunga said in his ruling.

More than 90 sections of the Security Laws (Amendment) Act 2014 will remain in force until the petition by CORD is heard and determined by the Supreme Court. 

Sections 12, 16, 26, 29, 48, 56, 58 and 64 of the Security Laws Act were suspended because they infringed on the Bill of Rights and civil liberties enjoyed by Kenyans.

First to be axed was Clause 12 of the Penal Code, whose section 66A imposes harsh penalties on social media users and grossly infringes on press freedom. This law makes it a felony to publish or distribute material that is “likely to cause fear and alarm” or “disturb public peace.” A person could be jailed for three years or fined $11,000, threatening the flourishing citizen journalism in Kenya.

Where this offence is committed by a media house, the fine is $55,000 — which could see many online tabloids close down.

Another law that infringes on press freedom is Clause 64 in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which greatly limits free speech and independence of the media. Section 30A of this law says publishing or uttering “a statement that is likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging” terrorism, attracts a prison term of 14 years.

Section 30F of the same law requires the media to seek authorisation from the police before publishing any information or images relating to victims of terrorism.

The judge said in his ruling that the Act “ought to be interrogated further by this court before implementation.”

In his ruling, the judge said “There is imminent danger of the offenders losing their liberty” if this law is implemented before the full hearing of the petition.

Justice Odunga also suspended Clause 16, which permits the keeping in custody of a suspect for a period of 90 days, and together with Clauses 15 to 21, which he said have the effect of denying the accused person “evidence against him until just before the hearing.”

Clause 26 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires an accused person to disclose to the prosecution the “nature of his defence including witness statements and documentary evidence,” has been suspended.

The law goes against the principle of presumption of innocence and the right not to disclose information that is self-incriminating as guaranteed by Kenya’s Constitution in Article 50.