Human rights lawyer Eron Kiiza has called for an immediate suspension of all court proceedings under the recently nullified Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022.
Speaking via his official X (formerly Twitter) account on Wednesday, Kiiza urged judicial authorities to act without delay, stressing the need to free anyone facing charges under the struck-down law.
“Freeze all proceedings based upon the Computer Misuse Act. AG advises Government. Courts must free all accused persons facing such nullified charges immediately,” Kiiza wrote.
His call follows a formal advisory issued by Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka, who outlined the practical and legal implications of a landmark Constitutional Court ruling declaring several provisions of the Computer Misuse law, as well as Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, unconstitutional.
The advisory, addressed to the Minister of ICT, Inspector General of Police, Director of Public Prosecutions, Director of the Criminal Investigations Directorate, and the Clerk to Parliament, instructed government agencies to halt enforcement of the invalidated provisions.
Kiryowa also highlighted procedural flaws in Parliament’s passage of the law, noting non-compliance with quorum requirements under Rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure and Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
The petitions leading to the ruling—Constitutional Petition Nos. 34, 37, and 42 of 2022—were filed by various civil society actors, including Alternative Digitalk Limited, the Human Rights Network for Journalists Uganda, and the Uganda Law Society.
Petitioners challenged Sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act, which criminalised unauthorised access to data, interception of communications, and sharing of information about children or deemed “malicious” or demeaning.
Section 162 of the Penal Code, covering libel, was also challenged for vagueness and inconsistency with international human rights standards.
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Irene Mulyagonja, found the provisions vague, overly broad, and prone to abuse.
The judgment emphasised that restrictions on anonymous online communication and the ambiguous definition of “malicious information” violated constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, access to information, and legal clarity.
The court also issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the nullified sections and ordered the state to cover 30% of the petitioners’ legal costs.
Civil society reactions have been swift. In a statement on 25 March 2026, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) condemned the continued detention of prominent lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi and other content creators, noting that the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court attempted to enforce Sections 26 and 28 of the Act on 19 March, despite the Constitutional Court’s injunction.
“The failure to recognise the certified copy of the Constitutional Court judgment undermines the judiciary’s e-Justice policy and is tantamount to indiscipline,” the ULS statement read.
Mabirizi faces charges of alleged hate speech and dissemination of “malicious information” targeting Chief Justice Flavian Zeija and Justice Musa Ssekaana, which he denies.
Using his TikTok account, he reportedly referred to the chief justice as a “conman” and accused him of corruption, while making similar claims against Justice Ssekaana.
ULS criticised what it described as the misuse of the court system to pursue personal vendettas rather than justice, urging the Chief Registrar and Principal Judge to intervene promptly.
The Attorney General’s advisory and Kiiza’s public call now place pressure on the judiciary to immediately halt enforcement of the nullified law and release anyone currently facing charges under the invalid provisions, reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitutional Court’s ruling.