🚨 Court orders Murang’a County's Afya.ke digital health system kept running, amid a dispute with the national government over the shutdown of the platform linking 176 health facilities. This is the dispute between the Murang'a County Government and the national Ministry of Health over the digital health platform known as Afya.ke. Here is what it means. Afya.ke is the platform Murang'a uses to store and retrieve patient records across its health facilities, and to run services such as telemedicine. The county says the national government switched it off and began moving its facilities onto Taifa Care, the platform run by the Social Health Authority. The Ministry of Health denies switching it off and describes Afya.ke as an arrangement between the county and private developers that was never certified under the national framework. The county went to court and has obtained an order stopping the shutdown while the dispute is heard. The case will be mentioned on 18 November. Beneath the question of software is a question about how power over health is shared. Health service delivery at county facilities is a devolved function under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, so the county runs its own hospitals and dispensaries. At the same time, the national government sets health policy and, under the Digital Health Act of 2023, sets the standards that digital health systems must meet for data security, privacy and interoperability before they are approved. The two mandates meet at the digital record, and that is where this conflict sits. Two further legal threads run through it. The first is the right to health under Article 43 of the Constitution. A system that links 176 facilities cannot be switched off without a plan for continuity, because the immediate effect is felt by patients whose records and treatment depend on it. That is the basis on which a court will preserve the status quo by an interim order, to prevent harm before the merits are decided. The second is data protection. Patient health records are among the most sensitive personal data there is, and moving them between systems in a hurry carries its own risks under the Data Protection Act of 2019, whichever platform is the right home for them. The legal dispute worth noting. On one side, the national government has a legitimate interest in a single, certified and secure digital health framework. If a county system was never assessed for security, privacy and interoperability, allowing a patchwork of uncertified systems would weaken the national health record and the standards the law requires. On the other side, running county facilities is the county's responsibility, and a working system serving its residents should not be switched off without consultation and a continuity plan, because cooperative government under Article 189 calls for consultation and dispute resolution before such a step, not after. The court has preserved the system for now. Whether the right path was certification and consultation rather than a shutdown is the question the hearing must resolve. Key takeaway: health is run by counties but regulated nationally, and the digital record is where those roles collide. When a shared system is switched off, the law looks first to the patient, and a court can hold the position until the larger question of who controls the system is decided. 👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on devolution, health law and data protection.

Parliament passes the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, and with it a commitment that surviving sexual violence will not cost a child her education. This is the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, National Assembly Bill No. 78 of 2023, passed by the National Assembly on 21 October 2026. Here is what it means. The Bill, sponsored by Hon. Dorice Aburi Donya, makes three main changes to the Sexual Offences Act. First, it protects the education of victims. It requires the Cabinet Secretary responsible for education to establish programmes that protect and promote the right to education of victims of sexual offences, including teenage mothers. This gives statutory weight to a constitutional promise. Under Article 43 every person has the right to education, under Article 53 every child has the right to free and compulsory basic education and the best interests of the child are paramount, and under Article 27 no one may be discriminated against. A girl who has survived sexual violence, or who becomes pregnant, keeps her right to learn. Second, it requires national public awareness. A new provision places a duty to promote public awareness of sexual offences, supporting the State's obligation under Article 21 to protect people from violence and to work to prevent it. Third, it aligns the Act with the Constitution. The Sexual Offences Act was passed in 2006, before the current Constitution. The Bill updates its language, replacing references to the Minister with the Cabinet Secretary in several sections, so that the law matches the structure of government under the 2010 Constitution. Because the Bill does not concern county governments, it does not go to the Senate. Having passed the National Assembly, it now proceeds to the President for assent. The legal dispute worth noting. The protection of victims' education and the prevention of sexual offences command broad agreement. The harder questions are about delivery. The Bill places new duties on Cabinet Secretaries to run programmes and awareness campaigns, yet its own memorandum states that it creates no additional public expenditure, which raises the practical question of how a positive duty is funded and enforced. And where awareness reaches children, there is a genuine debate about how it is delivered, balancing the protective value of information against the role of parents and communities in guiding what is age appropriate. These are questions of implementation rather than principle, and they will be answered as the programmes take shape. Key takeaway: the Bill turns constitutional guarantees on education, equality and protection from violence into specific statutory duties, and modernises a law written before the current Constitution. Its effect will depend on how those duties are resourced and carried out. 👉 Follow @Lexken_EMSLaw for practical legal insights on legislation and constitutional rights.