By Dr. Edris Omondi
Founder & CEO, Crime Prevention Initiative Trust (CPIT)
www.crimeprevention.net | info@crimeprevention.net
In the rush to digitize public services, strengthen international cooperation, and harness data for development, a familiar narrative has emerged: that courts slow progress, that constitutional review obstructs well-intentioned projects, and that legal safeguards are a burden rather than a benefit.
This narrative is both wrong and dangerous.
At a recent high-level conference on African Data and AI Sovereignty, policymakers, jurists, parliamentarians, diplomats, and scholars gathered to reflect on a simple but often ignored truth: prevention begins long before harm occurs. It starts with system design, legal architecture, and institutional accountability.
Crime today rarely begins with a single criminal act. It often starts upstream — in weak safeguards, opaque agreements, ungoverned data systems, and decisions made without adequate constitutional scrutiny. This is precisely where courts matter.
Across jurisdictions, courts are increasingly called upon to examine cross-border data governance frameworks, health cooperation agreements, and digital systems that affect millions of people. These judicial interventions are frequently mischaracterized as resistance to innovation. In reality, they are expressions of constitutional responsibility.
In Kenya, the High Court’s issuance of a conservatory order in Okiya Omtata v Attorney General did not reject international cooperation. It temporarily paused implementation to allow constitutional review — to assess whether safeguards around consent, data protection, sovereignty, and statutory compliance were sufficient. This was not obstruction; it was constitutionalism in action.
Globally, similar patterns are evident. In Europe, the Schrems II judgment clarified that contractual assurances alone cannot protect fundamental rights where foreign legal systems undermine them. In India, the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, requiring legality, necessity, proportionality, and adequate safeguards in any data-related state action.
Even in Kenya’s Worldcoin litigation, courts did not oppose innovation. Instead, they enforced the practical meaning of consent, impact assessments, and lawful data processing under the Data Protection Act.
The message from courts worldwide is consistent: innovation must proceed, but it must do so lawfully.
At the conference, leaders including H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, AU Pan-African Parliament President Fortune Charumbira, and Kenya’s Principal Secretary for Medical Services, Dr. Ouma Oluga, emphasized that data governance is no longer merely a technical concern. It is a matter of public trust, national security, and human dignity.
This is where prevention institutions play a critical role.
The Crime Prevention Initiative Trust (CPIT) does not operate as an emergency-response organization. Our work is upstream, where law, data, technology, and governance intersect. Our focus is not what happens after harm occurs, but the systems and decisions that allow that harm to happen in the first place.
Law, when properly designed and implemented, remains society’s most powerful preventive tool. It shapes incentives, structures behavior, and protects people before damage is done.
As Africa accelerates digital transformation, signs international agreements, and integrates cross-border data systems, the question is no longer whether data matters. Data now determines who is protected, who is exposed, and who decides.
Courts are not standing in the way of progress. They are ensuring that progress remains lawful, legitimate, and worthy of public trust.
Prevention is not optional. It is a shared responsibility.
