The Constitutional Court has declared several provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 unconstitutional, ruling that parts of the law violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including freedom of expression and access to information.
In a unanimous decision by a five-justice panel, the court found that key sections of the law were vague, overly broad, and prone to abuse, effectively criminalising legitimate speech.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Irene Mulyagonja ruled that Sections 23, 26, 27 and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act, along with Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, are "null and void" for failing the constitutional test of legality.
The court examined provisions that criminalised sharing information deemed to "ridicule," "demean," or "promote hostility," as well as those targeting anonymous communication and unsolicited content. It held that such offences lacked clear definitions, creating uncertainty and opening the door to arbitrary enforcement.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Petitioners--including Unwanted Witness Uganda, African Centre for Media Excellence, and the Editors' Guild--argued that the provisions violated Articles 29 and 41 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression and access to information.
The Attorney General defended the law, maintaining that the provisions were necessary to regulate harmful online conduct such as hate speech and malicious information.
However, the court found that the restrictions went beyond acceptable constitutional limits.
"The enactment of the Computer (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," the judges said.
Beyond substance, the court also identified a critical procedural flaw in the enactment of the law. Evidence, including the Hansard of September 8, 2022 and affidavits from the Clerk to Parliament, showed that Parliament passed the amendments without verifying the required quorum.
__________________________________
The clauses struck down
- Section 11: Criminalised unauthorized access, interception of data, or voice/video recording of another person.
- Section 23: Criminalised unauthorized sharing or transmission of any information about a child.
- Section 26: Criminalized sharing computer-based information likely to ridicule, degrade, or demean a person, or promote hostility based on tribe, religion, or gender.
- Section 27: Criminalised sending or sharing unsolicited information, unless it was in the public interest.
- Section 28: Criminalised sending or sharing "malicious information" relating to another person.
- Section 29: Prohibited the "misuse of social media" by sharing prohibited information under a disguised or false identity.
- Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act (criminal libel) were declared unconstitutional due to being vague and ambiguous
___________________________________
Justice Mulyagonja held that this failure contravened Rule 24(3) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure made under Article 94 of the Constitution, rendering the enactment inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89.
"As a result, the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 is null and void," the court ruled.
The judgment also struck down criminal libel provisions under Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act, citing their inconsistency with constitutional protections and international human rights obligations, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Concuring with the lead judgement, Justice Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka said Parliament had failed to comply with mandatory procedural rules, making the law invalid.
She said Section 162 of the Penal Code Act Contravenes objective of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution because it is inconsistent with the International obligations of Uganda.
"This court issues a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent and all government agencies, authorities and officials from enforcing the impugned provisions of sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act and section 162 of the Penal Code Act.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
She ordered the respondent to pay 30% of the costs of the petitioner's legal costs.
Other justices--Esther Nambayo, Jesse Rugyema Byaruhanga, and John Mike Musisi--also agreed, delivering a unanimous verdict.
The court issued a permanent injunction restraining government agencies from enforcing the impugned provisions, including Sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act, and ordered the state to pay 30 percent of the petitioners' legal costs.
The now-nullified provisions had been widely used to arrest and prosecute Ugandans--particularly young people, journalists, and activists--on charges such as "offensive communication" and "malicious information."
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for ongoing and past cases, potentially invalidating convictions secured under the struck-down law.
It also serves as a strong warning to lawmakers on the need to comply with constitutional safeguards and ensure that legislation does not infringe on fundamental rights.
