Posts

Showing posts from September, 2026

Machines Do Not Author: The Copyright Tribunal’s First Word on Artificial Intelligence in Aryeh Movement Limited v Akoth & Another

AI & Copyright in Kenya · Tribunal Case E001 of 2025 AI & authorship in Kenya A reading of Tribunal Case E001 of 2025 [2025] AI governance copyright KECOT human authorship [2025] KECOT 6 (KLR) · Aryeh Movement Limited v Akoth & another · first Kenyan adjudicatory decision on AI-assisted creative work Abstract · On 22 August 2025, Kenya’s Copyright Tribunal handed down Aryeh Movement Limited v Akoth & another , the first Kenyan decision to confront the question the Copyright Act has never answered: can a work generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence attract copyright protection, and if so, in whom does that protection vest? This paper reads the judgment closely: a registration dispute between a commissioning company and a commissioned author, resolved principally on jurisdictional grounds before turning to what the Tribunal said and did not say about AI. The central fi...

WHEN HACKED EMAILS BECOME EVIDENCE

Forensic model · Manchester City & Football Leaks Digital Evidence Independence · Manchester City & Football Leaks Five‑dimensional forensic model · acquisition, authentication, integrity, provenance, attribution 📅 2026 · analysis ⚖️ CAS / UEFA · CFCB 📄 abstract + key sections 📌 Abstract Digital communications increasingly occupy a central position in investigations involving corporate misconduct, regulatory violation, and cybercrime. Email evidence presents a particularly difficult forensic problem because the evidential value of an electronic message depends not only on its substantive content but on separate and logically independent questions of acquisition, authentication, integrity, provenance and attribution. These questions become especially difficult where the party against whom the evidence is deployed disputes the legality of the process by which the material was obtained, while declining to...

Deactivating and Recycling Inactive Mobile Numbers: A Critical Review of the Communications Authority of Kenya's 2026 Procedural and Technical Safeguards

Number recycling & consumer protection · Kenya Guideline CA.G.520:2026 Number recycling & consumer protection Analysing Kenya’s Guideline CA.G.520:2026 — deactivation, whitelisting, and the fight against SIM-swap fraud Telephone numbers are no longer just routing identifiers. They are keys to financial inclusion, digital identity, and civic life. In September 2026, the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) issued Guideline CA.G.520:2026 a detailed framework for deactivating and recycling inactive mobile numbers. This post unpacks the guideline’s lifecycle, its whitelisting provisions, and the technical safeguards that aim to balance resource scarcity with consumer protection. 1. Introduction Mobile numbers, governed internationally by ITU-T Recommendation E.164, are finite resources assigned temporarily to subscribers. Kenya’s numbering space is under pressure: a growing share of numbers lies d...