THE SOCIAL AND LEGAL IMPILICATION OF AI IMAGE EDITING AND DEEPFAKESIN KENYA: A SOCIOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE PERSPECTIVE

“The law must be stable, but it must not stand still.” – Roscoe Pound. 

Law is not just a set of rules; according to sociological jurisprudence, it is a social instrument designed to reflect societal realities, maintain social cohesion and to protect individuals from harm. When legal frameworks fail to adapt to technological and social changes, they risk leaving individuals vulnerable and the society at large to emerging threats. This article will thus take a sociological jurisprudence route to examines the social and legal implications of AI-edited images and deep fakes in Kenya, critiques the limitations of existing laws, and proposes ways the legal system can respond to these emerging challenges in line with societal needs.  

In Kenya and globally, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming everyday life. A recent study by  KPMG  found that about 66% of people interviewed  worldwide have adopted AI in their lives  to improve work, education, and personal tasks. In Kenya, research done on 301 businesses showed that 96%  of them had integrated AI across various sectors and these statistics are sure to rise. These figures are telling that AI is no longer the future, it is here with us and it is reshaping lifestyles. 

 AI offers numerous benefits to its users. These include but not limited to enhanced healthcare performance, improved education, automation of work, and entertainment. Among these developments, AI image editing, which refers to the use of algorithms to alter or enhance an image has become particularly influential. Traditionally, the tools for such generations were hard to find but with advanced applications, anyone can easily access them making generation of AI edited images and deep fakes not only easy but also hard to distinguish them from the real object. This poses a great threat to privacy if left unregulated. 

The dangers of unregulated AI edited images and deep fakes are dire to the society. They threaten the right to privacy or even spread misinformation that can lead to social embrassment thus stripping people of the fundamental right to dignity. Nevertheless, imagine how these can mislead the court when maliciously presented as evidence during a trial. While the society embreses the use of AI cautiously, its negative impacts have already hit Kenya. 

In Kenya, politicians and celebrities have been victims of deepfakes.  Politicians’ images and statements have regularly been edited,creating confusion and distrust among the public.A recent incident, is the case of Republic v Benson  Malova, where the accused was charged for publishing an image of the President of Kenya in a fake funeral. This is not an isolated case, there have been numerous such incidents where celebrities` images are edited to pose them in sexual explicit content that unfortunately go viral and harm their reputations. The rapid proliferation of such content easily produced and difficult to distinguish from real images increases these risks and leaves society questioning the authenticity of digital media.

Kenya has enacted laws such as the Data Protection Act (2019), which safeguards personal data rights, and the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (2018), which criminalizes cyber offenses including data theft, publication of false information, and harassment. While these laws provide some protection, they do not address these modern threats- AI-edited images and deepfakes. Neither Act defines these terms to start with, thus  limiting courts’ ability to regulate their creation and enforcement. This legal gap allows harmful content creation to proliferate unchecked, leaving victims with limited recourse and increasing social harm.

From a sociological jurisprudence point of view, the law should evolve hand in hand with technological and social developments to reflect societal realities. Only this way, can technological harms be avoided. The current legal framework’s inability to fully regulate AI-edited media highlights the urgent need for reform. This article thus examines the social and legal implications of AI-edited images and deep fakes in Kenya, critiques the limitations of existing laws, and proposes ways the legal system can respond to these emerging challenges in line with societal needs.  

Kenya has made notable strides in regulating the digital space. The Data Protection Act (2019) protects personal data and establishes rights such as consent, privacy, objection, and erasure. The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act (2018) criminalizes offenses like cyber harassment, theft of digital data, and the publication of false information. But are these laws wide enough to net the technological risks posed by AI-edited images and deepfakes? While they provide some protection, there are clear shortcomings. Neither Act defines “AI-edited images,” “deepfakes,” or “digitally manipulated media.” Without clear definitions, how can the courts regulate something they cannot precisely identify?

Even more pressing is the question of harm. Can an AI-edited image be considered processing of personal data if the content is not stolen but its circulation destroys someone’s reputation or livelihood? Take an example of where an image is harvested from social media where it was publicly posted. Does a deepfake automatically constitute cyber harassment, or must the victim prove technical manipulation and psychological impact? In reality, proving such offenses under existing law can be extremely difficult, forcing the judges to infer from existing laws.

These gaps leave victims vulnerable and exposed. The law’s silence on AI-edited content allows perpetrators to exploit loopholes, while courts are forced to infer applicability from provisions that were never designed for such technology. How then can the legal system maintain public confidence when emerging harms slip through the cracks?

Roscoe Pound,the father of sociological jurisprudence , considered the law as a social engineering  that is used to satisfy competing interests in the society. To Pound, these interests are social needs that are pressing to be recognized and to satisfied. For this reason, he believed that laws should evolve to adapt to the changing societal conditions. This school of thoughts raises a very critical point worth pondering: The risks of AI edited images and deep fakes are social in nature more than technical. While these technologies are tools that do not inherently cause harm, the risks emerge when human beings use these tools to cause harm. With this reality in mind, the law ought to recognize AI edited images and deep fakes as potential harm to balance the interests between freedom of expression and digital rights. 

Eugene Ehrlich, an eminent jurist, who took from Roscoe Pound believed that there exists a “living law” that is more powerful than any formal law. To him, the society is the source of law and all the statutory laws must reflect the living law. In principle, through Ehrlich`s lens,if the society experiences harm as a result of these technological advancements but the available law fails to address it, then the law is not in touch with the society. His proponent thus is, law makers should observe keenly how AI edited images and deep fakes are affecting the society and develop laws that reflect this reality. 

These proponents taken together suggest that the role of the law is not to merely punish the offenders but also anticipate and prevent societal harm. From this lens, the failure of the law to explicitly regulate AI is not merely a gap in law but also a big social misalignment. As Roscoe Pound puts it: The law must be stable, but it must not stand still at.      

BIBILIOGRAPHY  

Cases

1. R v Benson Malova (Unreported)

Books

1. Wacks R, Understanding Jurisprudence (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 163

Reports

1. Gillespie N, Lockey S, Ward T, Macdade A and Hassed G, Trust, Attitudes and Use of Artificial Intelligence: A Global Study 2025 (University of Melbourne and KPMG 2025) DOI:10.26188/28822919
2. Niestadt M, Protecting Children Online: Selected EU, National and Regional Laws and Initiatives (European Parliamentary Research Service, April 2025)

Articles (Magazine/Newspaper)

1. Wainyoke W, ‘The Use of AI in Kenya’ (The Star Magazine, 5 November 2025) https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/infographics/2025-11-05-ai-use-in-kenya-top-concerns accessed 25 November 2025

Web Sources

1. ‘What is the Difference Between AI Image Creation and Image Editing’ https://www.tencentcloud.com/techpedia/125163 accessed 26 November 2025