By Edrine Wanyama |
Uganda’s Constitutional Court has delivered a major ruling that has outlawed several sections of the Computer Misuse Act, Cap 96, and ordered the government and its agencies to stop any further enforcement of the nullified provisions. These stringent provisions had significantly restricted the use of various communication platforms, including social media. The court ruling marks an important step towards ending enduring limitations on freedom of expression, access to information and other online freedoms.
The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, which introduced a range of offences including unauthorised access, unauthorised sharing of information about children, hate speech, sharing of unsolicited and malicious information, and misuse of social media, has been outlawed in its entirety. These provisions were overly broad, vaguely worded and carried severe penalties.
In response to a number of petitions filed by individuals and civil society organisations, which were consolidated for determination, the Constitutional Court found that the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022, was passed into law without complying with the provisions of rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, which contravened articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution. Parliament’s rules of procedure and the Constitution require that the quorum should be ascertained before passing of laws.
The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), which was a co-petitioner in the case, had in its analysis and comments to the Parliamentary Committee on Information and Communications Technology argued that while addressing cybercrime was necessary, overly broad laws risk shrinking the digital civic space by limiting freedom of expression and access to information.
Moreover, the law was passed long after the Supreme Court ruling in Charles Onyango Obbo and Another v Attorney General, which had outlawed the criminalisation of false news in section 50 of the Penal Code Act. CIPESA had raised concerns about this inconsistency in the law prior to the filing of the petition.
Importantly, the Constitutional Court also struck down sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act, which criminalised defamation. The Court found that these provisions violate article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and are a limitation to the right to freedom of expression, contrary to regional and international human rights standards.
In the lead judgement of Justice Irene Mulyagonja, Court found that:
- “Parliament passed the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022 into an Act of Parliament without complying with the provisions of rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament made under Article 94 of the Constitution.
- The enactment of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill into an Act of Parliament without complying with rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament was inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution, and as a result, the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, was null and void.
- The provisions of the Computer Misuse Act (2023 Edition) that were challenged in Constitutional Petitions 34, 37 and 42 of 2022 are therefore all null and void because they were enacted without following the law.
- Section 162 of the Penal Code Act contravenes Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; and section 163 that defines the term “defamation” therein does not meet the standard of the law that is required by Article 9(2) of the Charter, and is inconsistent therewith to that extent and therefore null and void.”
Uganda has in recent years experienced significant restrictions on digital civic space. During the general elections in January 2026, the government shut down the internet for five days. In 2024, in the lead up to elections, were charged under the annulled law with malicious information on X and insulting the President and the First Family. These actions are often justified on grounds such as preventing online misinformation and disinformation or safeguarding national security, but their broad application raises serious concerns for digital rights and the right to free expression.
Over the years, several civic actors, including journalists and media professionals, human rights defenders, political opponents, have faced intimidation, arrests, and prosecution under these contentious provisions of the Computer Misuse Law.
Despite the Constitutional Court’s progressive decision, which is a positive step towards enhancing legislative accountability and reaffirming Uganda’s commitments under regional and international human rights instruments, there is no ultimate guarantee that the right to fundamental freedoms and civic liberties guaranteed by the Constitution will be respected.
It should be noted that the Court’s decision largely focused on procedural issues rather than examining the constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression and access to information. This leaves open the possibility that similar provisions could be reintroduced if proper legislative procedures are followed.
Continuous advocacy for progressive provisions remains necessary.
Given the volatile nature of Uganda’s digital space, there is a need for Parliament to ensure harmonisation of national laws with regional and international standards, conduct wide consultations on proposed laws, and undertake human rights impact assessments.
CIPESA welcomes the current judgement as progressive but emphasises the need for decisiveness in implementation of the orders by the court. Without sustained vigilance, restrictive laws in addition to the Uganda Communications Act, Public Order Management Act, Uganda Peoples Defence Forces Act, the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act and the Anti-terrorism Act may re-emerge in different forms.
The protection and promotion of civil liberties in digital spaces must remain a priority.
