Is hugging, kissing in public illegal in Kenya? What the law actually says

There is no law in Kenya that expressly criminalises public displays of affection./AI ILLUSTRATION

A casual hug at a bus stop. A goodbye kiss outside a matatu stage. For many, these are ordinary, even forgettable moments. But for some Nairobians, they have reportedly ended up in handcuffs.

Social media has recently been awash with claims of arrests linked to public displays of affection—commonly referred to as PDA—raising a pointed question: is it actually illegal to hug or kiss in public in Kenya?

One account describes a scene in the city centre. “My friend was hugging his man at Archives just before parting ways home, then out of nowhere two policemen came and started handcuffing them,” a user claimed.

Another recounts a similar experience: “It happened to me some years back at City Park. I was hugging a male friend, then three police officers came and insisted that it was PDA on public premises.”

Such claims are not unique to Kenya. In parts of the world where strict religious or cultural norms shape public conduct, PDA is clearly outlawed.

In countries like the United Arab Emirates, for instance, intimate behaviour in public is treated as a violation of public decency, with penalties ranging from fines to deportation.

Kenya, however, sits in a more legally ambiguous space. There is no law that expressly criminalises public displays of affection.

Historically, Section 177 of the Penal Code attempted to address indecent acts and public nuisance, providing a basis for punishing behaviour deemed obscene.

However, that provision, part of Chapter XVII, which deals with nuisances and offences against health and convenience, was deleted in 1966 and is no longer in force, leaving no direct statutory prohibition against PDA.

But the absence of an explicit ban does not necessarily translate to full legal protection. What exists instead are broadly framed provisions under the Penal Code that law enforcement officers may rely on, depending on how they interpret a given situation.

These provisions do not mention PDA by name, but they do address conduct that could be construed as disruptive, indecent or offensive to the public.

Section 175 of Chapter XVII of the Penal Code states that “any person who does an act not authorised by law or ... causes inconvenience to the public in the exercise of common rights, commits the misdemeanour termed a common nuisance and is liable to imprisonment for one year”.

This provision is intentionally wide in scope. It is designed to capture a range of behaviours that interfere with public comfort or order. In practice, that breadth leaves room for interpretation, including regarding PDA.

Similarly, Section 182 of the Penal Code addresses what it terms idle and disorderly conduct. It provides that “every person who, without lawful excuse, publicly does any indecent act is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable for the first offence to imprisonment for one month or to a fine not exceeding one hundred shillings, or to both”.

Again, the key phrase here is “indecent act”—a term that is not expressly defined in law. What one person considers harmless affection, another—particularly an arresting officer—might interpret as indecent, especially if the conduct is seen as excessive or explicit.

The result is a legal grey area that some have argued could be exploited by the arresting officer out of spite, malice or envy against two people in love.

PDA is not outlawed per se, but certain forms of it could fall within the scope of existing offences if they are deemed to cross a line into indecency or public nuisance.

Context also matters. While there are no county-specific laws that explicitly list public sexual behaviour as a punishable nuisance, other legislation introduces additional considerations.

The Children Act, 2022, for instance, places a clear emphasis on protecting minors from exposure to inappropriate conduct. It provides that “the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration,” and exposing children to obscene behaviour or public indecency can attract criminal liability.

Another layer of complexity arises from provisions in the Penal Code that address “gross indecency,” particularly in relation to same-sex conduct.

Sections 162 and 165 state that “any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person ... is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years”.

These provisions do not specifically define what constitutes “gross indecency,” but their scope has historically been interpreted to include non-penetrative acts.

In practice, this means that same-sex affection—even in private—can be subjected to legal scrutiny, making public displays even more legally precarious.

Comparatively, Kenya’s position is neither the most restrictive nor the most permissive.

In Uganda, for example, public kissing has led to arrests under public decency laws, often reinforced by local regulations.

In India, Section 294 of the Penal Code criminalises “obscene acts” in public that annoy others, a provision that has at times been used to penalise kissing or hugging.

In parts of Indonesia, public affection is discouraged through local moral codes rooted in religious interpretation.

These examples underscore a common thread: where laws rely on subjective terms like “indecent” or “obscene,” enforcement often depends less on the act itself and more on perception—by authorities, by bystanders, or by prevailing cultural norms.

Back in Kenya, that subjectivity is at the heart of the current debate. The law does not categorically ban PDA, but neither does it clearly shield it.

Instead, it leaves room for interpretation, enforcement discretion, and, at times, contestation in court.

Law enforcement often uses these sections to arrest people engaging in overt sexual activity in public spaces, such as parks or vehicles.

For the average Kenyan, mild expressions of affection—such as holding hands or a brief hug—are unlikely to attract legal trouble.

But more intimate conduct, particularly if it is deemed explicit, disruptive, or offensive in a public setting, could potentially fall within the ambit of nuisance or indecency laws.

Ultimately, whether an arrest holds up in court would depend on how convincingly the conduct is framed within those existing legal provisions.

Until the law speaks more directly to the issue, PDA in Kenya will remain what it effectively is today: not explicitly illegal, but not entirely risk-free either.