Kenya Revives Bill to Control and Regulate ICT Industry Amid Opposition

What was earlier called the ICT Practitioners Bill has been reintroduced in the Kenya parliament under a new name; the ICT Authority Bill, 2024. This new legislation will help effectively to control its ICT sector through registration and licensing of ICT firms and individuals.

Proposed by the former majority leader Aden Duale in 2016, the ICT Practitioners Bill has long been met with disapproval from members of the ICT industry. Some critics offered valid concerns to argue that the bill overlapped with the existing laws, and again the potential to lock out superior talent through the requirement for university degrees. Nevertheless, it did not issue out on the presidential request.

With the ICT cabinet secretary Eliud Owalo spearheading its efforts, Kenya is once again seeking to require that any organization which offers ICT services to be certified by an authority under the ministry of ICT.

The most common obligations in this accreditation will include the essential technical requirements, experience, and tools that the candidate needs to have as deemed by the authority. It will also entail paying EUR 500 per bill, just like the initial bill that was proposed eight years ago but charges for which were not defined. The costs will be determined by the Authority as provided in the current bill to the congress.

However, even though the Practitioners Bill has been amended severally to try to resolve the problematic areas, the new ICT Authority Bill has retained some contentious issues. For instance, it remains unclear on two key points: the clarification of what concerns constitutes “ICT services”, possible “minimum technical skills” that professionals and firms should possess. This lack of clarity presages the issues arising at the previous stages of the bill’s development.

A part of the proposed bill reads: “The Authority may revoke a certificate of a service provider, where the service provider ceases to carry on the business regarding which the certificate was issued; is wound up, liquidated or otherwise dissolved; and at the end of suspension period, the service provided has not complied with any directive offered.”