Published in the Uganda Gazette Vol. CXIX No. 71, these guidelines establish a framework for journalists seeking access to restricted venues, government functions, major events or private functions where the organizer needs accreditation.
However, for journalists and media houses operating in Uganda, these Guidelines arrive in the shadow of a landmark High Court decision that declared compulsory accreditation illegal.
The legal gymnastics employed by the Media Council to is intended to address the judicial questions while meeting the objective, of course it shall invite scrutiny.
The 2021 High Court Decision: An Elephant in the Room
In Editors Guild Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General (Misc. Cause No. 400 of 2020), the High Court delivered a ruling that fundamentally undermined the Media Council's authority to accredit journalists. Justice Esta Nambayo held that:
- The Press and Journalist Act does not empower the Media Council to accredit journalists
- The Media Council may only issue practising certificates to journalists who have first obtained certificates of enrolment from the National Institute of Journalists of Uganda (NIJU)
- Since NIJU is defunct and non-operational, no enrolment is taking place, and the Media Council cannot legally issue certificates
- The Media Council itself is not properly constituted as the law requires, lacking the prescribed quorum for its meetings
The Court further held that compulsory accreditation of journalists has been recognised at both national and international levels as a hindrance to the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression.
This ruling was clear, unambiguous, and binding. The Media Council could not simply ignore it.
First forward, the Media Council has been fully constituted,infact it went ahead to appoint members that address all the intended mischieeve of the representation in the Act including those that would have been addressed by National Institute of Journalists of Uganda (NIJU)
The Guideline Versus
Rather than confront the High Court decision directly, the Media Council has ensued that the 2026 Guidelines carefully answers the ruling while maintaining its gatekeeping role. This is achieved through a deliberate legal framing that distinguishes the new accreditation scheme from what the Court declared illegal.
General Principle 5: The Distinction Strategy
The Guidelines establish in their general principles that:
- "Accreditation under these Guidelines is distinct from registration or licensing of journalists."
- "Accreditation is intended solely to facilitate access to specific restricted-access venues, functions, and events."
- "Accreditation granted under these Guidelines shall not constitute authority to practise journalism generally and shall not replace any statutory requirement that may be prescribed by law."
This is the Media Council's legal shield. By explicitly stating that accreditation is not registration or licensing, the Council argues that it is not doing what the High Court declared illegal. It is merely "facilitating access" rather than conferring authority to practise journalism.
The Object and Purpose: A Public Interest Justification
The Guidelines further legitimises through their stated objectives: The purpose of these Guidelines which is to:
- a. facilitate access by journalists to restricted-access functions and events in the public interest;
- b. establish a transparent and fair accreditation process;
- c. promote public access to information through responsible media coverage;
- d. ensure safety, security, and orderly media participation at restricted venues.
On its face, this is reasonable. Who could object to facilitating access, promoting transparency, or ensuring safety?
The critical question some may want to ask is: Can the Media Council, a body that the High Court found to be improperly constituted and lacking legal authority, validly exercise any regulatory power at all?
The answer is yes, by addressing the gaps or questions that the court raised, practically, intentionally and based on the mischief rule of interpretation
The Legal Problem That is being answered?
1. The Council's Legal Status
The High Court found that the Media Council itself is not properly constituted as the law requires. It is a known fact that the government has since reconstituted the Council in accordance with the law, any action taken by the Council ncluding issuing these Guidelines is therefore now legally valid.
2. The NIJU Question
The Press and Journalist Act establishes a two-step process: enrolment with NIJU, followed by certification by the Media Council. With NIJU defunct, the entire statutory framework for journalist regulation has to be addressed practically to meet the NIJU Objective.
To address that Council Members appointed includes those that hold the qualifications that the NIJU body was to address, these Guidelines can therefore operate on this reasonable, practical and statutory reality.
3. The Distinction
The Guidelines is to the effect that that accreditation is "distinct" from licensing, practically, journalists or media practitioners who cannot obtain accreditation to an event can still practice journalism. This is fundamentally different from being denied a licence to practise.
4. The International Law Dimension
It is worth noting that the Court in the Editors Guild case referenced international standards that condemn compulsory accreditation as a hindrance to press freedom.
The Guidelines addresses this dimension through the principles by emphasizing that it does not stop journalist from practicing journalism, one may argue that a journalists can still report on the event through those present or following the event live on TV or digitally
What This Means for Journalists on the Ground
The Practical Reality for journalists is that:
- Government now has the discretion to demand Accreditation to functions and official press briefings, and should they deem so, the journalists should Apply accordingly
- Major events at the discretion of organisers including international sporting events, conferences, and summits, may require accreditation
The Guideline notwithstanding, it is a known fact and a reality that journalists and media practitioners have been undergoing accreditation to attend several state functions, this is to mainly formalize it
The Constitutional Rights Dimension
Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including the right to impart information. Any restriction on this right must be:
- Prescribed by law (a valid statutory provision)
- Reasonably justifiable in a democratic society
Given the digital age, changes in media practice and journalism, emerging trends of media practitioners as opposed to journalists by profession, the formalizations are inevitable provided the constitutional mandates are adhered to
Practical Guidance for Journalists
- Know Your Rights
- Document Everything
If you are denied access to an event or venue based on the absence of Media Council accreditation:
- Document the denial in writing
- Request written reasons for the denial
- Preserve all correspondence
3. Utilise the Appeals Process
The Guidelines provide for an appeals process:
"A person aggrieved by a refusal or revocation of accreditation may appeal to the Council in writing within Seventy-Two hours of notification or denial of access after due accreditation."
While this process is internal to the Council, it must be exhausted before seeking judicial review.
4. Consider Legal Action
Where denials of access violate constitutional rights, judicial review remains available. The High Court has already shown itself willing to strike down unlawful accreditation requirements.
5. Support Industry Advocacy
The National Association of Broadcasters, Uganda Editors Guild, ACME, and other industry bodies have consistently called for comprehensive media law reform. Supporting these efforts is crucial for long-term change.
The Way Forward: The Need for Legislative Reform
Whereas in this new digital and information age of citizen journalism, media practitioners, there is no question that the media council is more relevant now than ever, however, the fact also remains that the Press and Journalist Act is outdated and inadequate for the modern media environment.
Comprehensive reform is urgently needed, the efforts by the media council to exercise regulatory oversight are welcome but a holistic review that fundamentally empowers the council founded and grounded on clear statutory provisions is needed now than yesterday
What Reform Should Address
- Clear statutory authority for any accreditation scheme
- Operational NIJU or an alternative independent regulatory mechanism
- Properly constituted Media Council with statutory membership and quorum
- Independent appeals mechanism for accreditation decisions
- Protection against arbitrary denial of access
The Government's Responsibility
The government has a constitutional obligation to:
- Respect the right to freedom of expression
- Protect journalists from arbitrary interference
- Promote an enabling environment for media freedom
- Formalize the process and procedure to promote accountability and professionalism
Conclusion: A Legal House of Cards?
For journalists in Uganda, this is a moment for vigilance and strategic engagement. The Guidelines should be understood for what they are: a regulatory tool that operates in legally contested territory, intended to facilitate access for journalists and media practitioners in an organised manner
The author, Obadia Ismail, is a Media Lawyer