Prison authorities defend ban on digital learning tools behind bars

Prison authorities and Attorney-General Dorcas Oduor have defended their decision to strictly regulate formal online education in prisons, arguing that granting inmates access to the internet and laptops poses a serious security risk.

In their response filed by the AG in a case brought by Erastus Ngura Odhiambo, who has been in jail since 2018 serving a 20-year sentence for the murder of a woman alleged to have been his wife, they argued that he had not raised any dispute warranting the court’s intervention.

“The right to education under Article 43(1)(f) does not, in the context of imprisonment, extend to a positive constitutional obligation on prison authorities to supply a convicted prisoner with internet-enabled electronic devices on demand. The petitioner’s request for study resources, including a laptop and router, raises profound and legitimate security concerns within the prison environment,” argued the AG’s lawyer, Jackline Kiramana.

Ngura, who was convicted of killing Linda Wanjiku Irungu in Buru Buru in 2014, opted to spend his time at Kamiti Maximum Security Prison pursuing academic studies. He enrolled for a master’s degree in May 2019.

Given his restricted freedom, online classes offered by Mt Kenya University were instrumental in his studies. He graduated in June 2022 and later enrolled for another master’s degree in project management.

Ngura, a familiar figure in legal circles, said he had authored several journals and articles and had been mentoring fellow inmates in entrepreneurship.

He stated that prison authorities had previously allowed him access to a laptop and the internet. On February 15, 2023, he was issued with a laptop, bag, mouse, headphones and a Wi-Fi router.

However, his education was disrupted after he was transferred to Kamiti Medium Security Prison in February last year, where he claims similar support was denied. He further alleged that disciplinary action was initiated against him after requesting reinstatement of the learning tools.

Ngura argued that education is part of rehabilitation and that he has maintained good conduct throughout his incarceration. He also said he risks losing Sh63,000 in tuition fees due to the restrictions imposed.

The court heard that prison authorities had previously raised disciplinary charges against him, including alleged possession of a phone charger and cable, allegations he denies. He further claimed he was not provided with charge sheets or records of disciplinary proceedings, denying him a fair hearing.

Over the years, the number of inmates sitting KCPE and KCSE examinations and graduating from colleges and universities has steadily increased. Between 2004 and 2005, 120 inmates sat KCPE and 75 sat KCSE, while 40 graduated with diplomas.

Ngura’s case has drawn attention due to his continued pursuit of legal and academic challenges from prison. He is also appealing his conviction, arguing that the evidence used against him was contradictory and insufficient. The Court of Appeal previously upheld his conviction, finding that he fatally shot the victim at close range and continued assaulting her, describing the act as cold-blooded murder.

He has also filed other petitions relating to prisoner rights, including one arguing that mobile phone numbers constitute personal data that should be protected even during incarceration.

In a separate case, his wife has also petitioned the court seeking conjugal rights, arguing that imprisonment does not remove marital and parental responsibilities.

But the State insists that while inmates retain certain rights, these do not extend to unrestricted access to digital devices due to security concerns within correctional facilities.