The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has challenged the Attorney General’s interpretation of the recent Constitutional Court ruling that nullified key provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, and Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, warning that his guidance risks undermining the judgment’s full legal effect.
In a strongly worded statement dated March 31, 2026, and signed by ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde, the legal body, while acknowledging Kiryowa Kiwanuka’s directive to halt enforcement of the invalidated provisions, described parts of his legal guidance as “unacceptably vague, improper and misleading.”
“We commend you for advising State organs to abide by the Court’s orders. However, your further opinion that ‘the law should be sent back to Parliament for proper enactment’ is unacceptably vague, improper and misleading,” the statement read.
The Attorney General’s advisory, issued on March 18, had instructed key government institutions—including the Ministry of ICT, the Inspector General of Police, and the Director of Public Prosecutions—to terminate ongoing cases and cease arrests under the impugned provisions. He also acknowledged procedural flaws in Parliament’s passage of the law, particularly the failure to meet quorum requirements under Rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
However, the ULS argues that the phrase “proper enactment” lacks the necessary constitutional clarity and risks repeating the same procedural violations that led to the law’s nullification. The Society emphasized that the Constitutional Court had provided “elaborate procedural and substantive guidance” that must be strictly followed.
“‘Proper enactment is not a self-executing or magical phrase; it carries a precise constitutional threshold that your opinion omits,” the statement read.
Among the procedural requirements outlined by ULS are the Speaker’s formal acknowledgment of errors in verifying quorum during the law’s passage, the abandonment of voice voting practices criticized by courts, and strict adherence to detailed parliamentary record-keeping standards. These include documenting the exact number of Members of Parliament present, voting, or abstaining, supported by verifiable evidence.
The ULS also stressed that any future legislation must align with international human rights standards cited by the Court, including principles on freedom of expression. It warned that ignoring these benchmarks would expose Parliament to further legal challenges.
Central to the ULS critique is the legal meaning of the Court’s declaration that the laws were “null and void.” The Society underscored that such a ruling renders the provisions legally nonexistent from the outset.
“A law declared null and void is “a blank sheet of paper’ from its inception. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse,” the statement read.
As a result, the ULS asserts that all arrests, prosecutions, and convictions based on the invalidated provisions are unlawful. It called for the immediate termination of ongoing sentences and emphasized victims’ constitutional right to compensation under Article 23(7).
“Every arrest, restriction and detention founded upon it was unlawful. Victims of unlawful arrests and detentions should therefore seek legal counsel to enforce their right to compensation,” the statement read.
The Society further rejected any suggestion of “prospective nullification,” a doctrine that would limit the ruling’s effects to future cases. It described such an approach as incompatible with Uganda’s Constitution, particularly the principle of constitutional supremacy.
In addition, ULS expressed concern over what it described as ongoing non-compliance with the Court’s ruling. It cited cases at Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court and other judicial institutions where individuals remain detained under the nullified provisions.
To ensure full implementation, the Law Society proposed a comprehensive government response, including the establishment of a monitoring taskforce, coordinated sentence reviews, public advisories, and outreach efforts to affected individuals.
“All State organs and agencies are constitutionally obliged to implement the injunction by providing unreserved support, information and advice to the public,” the statement read.
The Constitutional Court’s decision arose from consolidated petitions filed by civil society groups, including Alternative Digitalk Limited, the Human Rights Network for Journalists Uganda, and the ULS itself. The petitioners challenged several sections of the Computer Misuse Act, arguing they were vague, overly broad, and prone to abuse, particularly in restricting online expression.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Justice Irene Mulyagonja, the Court agreed, finding that the provisions violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, access to information, and legal certainty. It also issued a permanent injunction against their enforcement and ordered the state to pay 30% of the petitioners’ legal costs.
“We remind you that your primary duty is to defend the Constitution, not to devise creative ways of circumventing it,” the statement read.
“We shall ensure the full, immediate and retrospective effect of the Constitutional Court’s orders through every lawful instrument at our disposal.”
