Outspoken political analyst and Chairperson of the Council for Abavandimwe, Frank Gashumba, has predicted that the controversial Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 could return to Parliament despite its recent nullification by the Constitutional Court.
“Those who championed the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 will bring it back to Parliament, and it will pass again,” Gashumba said during NBS Barometer on Tuesday.
Gashumba acknowledged the positive impact of social media, noting that platforms have enabled many young Ugandans to start businesses in sectors like furniture and construction. However, he cautioned that a small segment of users misuses these platforms, making regulation necessary.
The Constitutional Court recently declared several provisions of the law unconstitutional. In a unanimous decision delivered by a five-justice panel, the court found that Sections 23, 26, 27, and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act, alongside Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including freedom of expression and access to information.
Justice Irene Mulyagonja, delivering the lead judgment, ruled that the provisions criminalized legitimate speech and were overly broad. Activities such as sharing information that could “ridicule,” “demean,” or “promote hostility,” targeting anonymous communication, and restricting unsolicited content were deemed vague and prone to abuse.
Petitioners including Unwanted Witness Uganda, the African Centre for Media Excellence, and the Editors’ Guild argued that the provisions violated Articles 29 and 41 of the Constitution.
The Attorney General defended the law, citing the need to regulate harmful online conduct, but the court concluded that the restrictions exceeded constitutional limits.
The court also highlighted a procedural flaw: the amendments were passed without verifying the required parliamentary quorum, violating Rule 24(3) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure under Article 94 of the Constitution.
Justice Mulyagonja emphasized that this contravened Articles 88 and 89, rendering the enactment invalid.
Justice Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka concurred, noting that Section 162 of the Penal Code Act conflicted with Uganda’s national objectives and international obligations, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The court issued a permanent injunction preventing government agencies from enforcing Sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act and Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, and ordered the state to pay 30 percent of the petitioners’ legal costs.
The nullified provisions had previously been used to prosecute Ugandans—particularly young people, journalists, and activists—for “offensive communication” and “malicious information.”
Section 11 criminalised unauthorized access or recording; Section 23 targeted information about children; Sections 26 and 27 restricted sharing content that could ridicule or demean; Section 28 dealt with “malicious information”; Section 29 prohibited misuse of social media under false identities; and Sections 162–163 of the Penal Code addressed criminal libel.
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for ongoing and past cases, though Gashumba warned that Parliament may reintroduce the legislation in some form, citing the government’s desire to regulate online conduct.
