Kira Municipality Member of Parliament–elect and National Unity Platform (NUP) lawyer, George Musisi, has described the Constitutional Court’s decision to nullify sections of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 as a landmark victory for media rights and freedom of expression.
Speaking to Canary Mugume on Next Big Talk hosted by Next Radio on Tuesday, Musisi said the ruling reinforces the need for Parliament to strictly follow constitutional procedures when passing laws.
He noted that similar decisions have been made in the past, including cases dating back to petitions by the late Paul Ssemogerere, where laws were struck down due to lack of quorum.
“One of the groundbreaking aspects of this decision is that the court referred to the national objectives when addressing criminal liability. The provisions were found to be vague and contrary to the directive principles of state policy,” Musisi said.
He argued that disputes arising from speech should largely be handled through civil litigation rather than criminal sanctions.
“It has always been our argument that some of these laws criminalising speech would be better left to individuals to seek civil remedies in the courts,” he said.
Musisi further warned against excessive state control of online expression, noting that even established democracies struggle to regulate social media without infringing on rights.
“We thought this bill was draconian. In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled that spreading false news is not a criminal offence,” he added.
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision led by Irene Mulyagonja, declared several provisions of the law unconstitutional for violating rights to freedom of expression and access to information.
The court nullified Sections 23, 26, 27, and 29 of the Act, as well as Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, citing vagueness and susceptibility to abuse.
The judges found that provisions criminalizing content deemed to “ridicule,” “demean,” or “promote hostility,” as well as restrictions on anonymous communication and unsolicited information, were overly broad and effectively criminalized legitimate speech.
The court also identified a critical procedural flaw, noting that Parliament passed the amendments without verifying the required quorum, in violation of constitutional provisions and its own rules of procedure.
Justice Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka, concurring with the lead judgment, emphasized that criminal libel provisions under Section 162 of the Penal Code Act were inconsistent with Uganda’s constitutional objectives and international human rights obligations.
The ruling issued a permanent injunction restraining authorities from enforcing the impugned provisions and ordered the state to pay 30 percent of the petitioners’ legal costs.
Musisi clarified that the judgment will mainly benefit individuals with ongoing cases.
“For those whose cases have been concluded, they do not benefit. But those on remand or out on bail can rely on this decision because it takes effect from the moment it was pronounced,” he said.
He also questioned the intent behind the law, suggesting that some legislators sought to silence critics.
“There was a general feeling that the MPs behind the bill were just trying to silence their critics because, as a leader, you are always being criticised,” he said.
The now-nullified provisions had been widely used to prosecute journalists, activists, and young people under charges such as offensive communication and malicious information.
Musisi concluded that while a revised law could be introduced, the previous amendments were a direct affront to free speech.
“It criminalized the sharing of information for free speech or for criticising anyone in power,” he said.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for digital rights and legislative practice in Uganda, serving as a warning to lawmakers to uphold constitutional safeguards when enacting laws.