Transparency

How this platform stays out of court

This page is published deliberately. It sets out the Kenyan legal exposure a platform like this carries, and the specific design decision that answers each one. It is a plain-language summary, not legal advice — get a Kenyan advocate to review before you scale.

The one thing that matters most: intermediary safe harbour

Section 56 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, 2018 protects a service provider from civil and criminal liability for user content unless it had actual notice or actual knowledge of the illegality, or acted with wilful and malicious intent. That protection is only available to a platform that behaves like a conduit.

Three behaviours forfeit it: editing user posts, endorsing or ranking them editorially, and ignoring valid takedown notices. My Haki Voice is built to do none of those things. We set rules before posting, screen automatically, and remove on notice — but we never rewrite, verify, endorse or promote a story.

Why the lowest-burden model was chosen

Every feature that increases usefulness also increases legal exposure. Evidence uploads create a data-breach target. Lawyer matching edges toward the Advocates Act and toward vicarious liability for the advocate's conduct. National ID collection makes you a controller of sensitive personal data. Private case review makes you a decision-maker whose decisions can be challenged.

Stripping all of that away leaves a public forum: users post, users reply, nobody is named, nothing is stored that anyone would want to steal, and no promise is made that could be broken.

Claim-by-claim risk register

Defamation

Defamation Act (Cap. 36); Jacqueline Okuta v AG (2017) eKLR

Risk scenario: A user names a business or an individual and accuses them of fraud. The named party sues both the user and the platform for publishing it.

How we neutralise it: No naming rule enforced at the point of posting, an automatic screen for company and title markers, no editorial curation, and same-day takedown on notice. Under Kenyan law truth is a defence but the burden falls on the defendant — so we simply never host identifying accusations.

Unauthorised practice of law

Advocates Act (Cap. 16)

Risk scenario: The platform tells a user they have a strong case, drafts a demand letter, or charges for a legal opinion.

How we neutralise it: We never assess cases, never draft anything, never match users to advocates and never charge for anything case-related. Replies that give advice rather than personal experience are removed. The disclaimer appears on every page and must be accepted before posting.

Contempt of court

Contempt of Court Act, 2016

Risk scenario: A user discusses a matter that is live before a court, or alleges that a named judicial officer is corrupt.

How we neutralise it: Live matters and case numbers are blocked by the pre-publication filter, judicial titles trigger a warning, and any such post is removed on sight or on notice.

Child and sexual-offence confidentiality

Children Act, 2022; Sexual Offences Act, 2006

Risk scenario: A parent posts about a custody matter naming their child, or a survivor's identifying details appear in a thread.

How we neutralise it: These categories are excluded from the forum entirely and blocked by the filter. Users in these situations are pointed to specialist organisations instead of a public board.

Data protection breach

Data Protection Act, 2019 (fines up to KES 5m)

Risk scenario: A hacker accesses stored national IDs, phone numbers and case files.

How we neutralise it: The strongest defence is not collecting the data. There are no accounts, no ID capture, no phone numbers, no email addresses and no document uploads. There is almost nothing to breach, and the platform is unlikely to cross the ODPC registration threshold on volume of sensitive processing.

Consumer protection / deceptive practices

Consumer Protection Act; FTC v DoNotPay as a cautionary precedent

Risk scenario: Users pay a subscription believing they are hiring a lawyer and receive an automated template instead.

How we neutralise it: Nothing on this platform is sold as a legal outcome. Money only ever buys community features and visibility for supporters — never advice, never representation, never a promise about a case.

SLAPP retaliation

Civil litigation strategy

Risk scenario: A powerful entity files an expensive suit designed to exhaust the platform rather than to win.

How we neutralise it: Because no post identifies anyone, there is rarely a named plaintiff with standing. Separate the operating company from personal assets, keep a documented takedown log, and carry media-liability cover once traffic grows.

This page is general information about how the platform is structured. It is not legal advice and does not create an advocate–client relationship.

Send a takedown notice →