Uganda Constitutional Court Nullifies Computer Misuse Act Provisions

Ugandan journalist and political commentator Timothy Kalyegira was recently taken into custody, with initial reports indicating he faced charges under the Computer Misuse Act. This development highlights the persistent legal challenges confronting media practitioners in Uganda, often under legislation perceived to stifle freedom of expression. While specific charges against Kalyegira later emerged under the Uganda Communications Act, his case draws attention to the broader application of digital laws against journalists. Crucially, the Ugandan Constitutional Court has, through significant rulings in January 2023 and March 2026, nullified key provisions of both the original Computer Misuse Act, 2011, and the entirety of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, on grounds of unconstitutionality and procedural irregularities, thereby reshaping the legal landscape for online speech.

The recent detention and subsequent charging of prominent Ugandan journalist and political commentator Timothy Kalyegira have once again cast a spotlight on the precarious state of media freedom and digital rights in the country. Initially, reports indicated that Kalyegira was facing charges under Uganda's Computer Misuse Act. This immediately raised concerns among human rights advocates and legal professionals, given the Act's history of being invoked against critics and journalists for their online commentary. While subsequent reports clarified that Kalyegira was ultimately charged under the Uganda Communications Act for broadcasting without a license, the initial apprehension under the umbrella of 'computer misuse' underscores a broader pattern of leveraging digital legislation to regulate, and often restrict, online expression. This article will delve into the legal framework of Uganda's Computer Misuse Act, its controversial application, and the significant judicial interventions that have recently curtailed its scope, examining the implications for journalists and the exercise of freedom of expression in the digital age.

Uganda's primary legislation governing cyber activities is the Computer Misuse Act, 2011 (Act No. 2 of 2011), which aims to ensure the safety and security of electronic transactions and information systems by preventing unlawful access, abuse, or misuse of computer systems. Part IV of the Act originally outlined various computer misuse offences, including unauthorised access, unauthorised use or interception of computer service, electronic fraud, child pornography, and cyber harassment. A particularly contentious provision was Section 25, which criminalised "offensive communication," defined as the willful and repeated use of electronic communication to disturb or attempt to disturb the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication.

In 2022, the Ugandan Parliament enacted the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, which sought to introduce more stringent provisions. These amendments aimed to prohibit the unlawful sharing of information relating to children, hate speech, the sending or sharing of malicious or unsolicited information, and to regulate the use of social media. The amended Act also introduced severe penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and a 10-year ban from holding public office for convicted individuals. These provisions were widely criticised by civil society and human rights organisations for their broad and vague wording, which was seen as a direct threat to freedom of expression and a tool for silencing dissent. The right to freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press and other media, is a fundamental constitutional guarantee in Uganda, enshrined under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995. However, this right is subject to limitations under Article 43, which stipulates that such restrictions must be acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

The application of the Computer Misuse Act, both in its original and amended forms, has been a significant point of contention regarding freedom of expression in Uganda. Historically, Section 25, which criminalised "offensive communication," was frequently employed against journalists, activists, and critics for their online posts. Notable cases included the prosecution of individuals for allegedly disturbing the peace of public officials through social media. Critics argued that the vagueness and broadness of Section 25 provided law enforcement with unfettered discretion, leading to arbitrary arrests and prosecutions that stifled legitimate public discourse.

However, the legal landscape has undergone a significant transformation due to recent landmark rulings by the Ugandan Constitutional Court. In January 2023, the Constitutional Court declared Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act, 2011, null and void. The court found this provision to be inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution, deeming it vague, overly broad, and ambiguous, and thus an unjustifiable curtailment of free speech in a democratic society. This ruling was a major victory for digital rights advocates, halting the enforcement of this problematic section and impacting ongoing cases.

Further strengthening protections for online expression, the Constitutional Court delivered another pivotal judgment in March 2026. In consolidated petitions (Constitutional Petitions 34, 37, and 42 of 2022), the court nullified the *entire* Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022. The basis for this sweeping nullification was procedural: Parliament had passed the amendments without the required quorum, violating Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution. This ruling effectively rendered defunct the new offences introduced by the 2022 amendment, such as those related to "malicious information," "unsolicited information," "hate speech," and "misuse of social media." Moreover, the March 2026 decision also nullified several specific sections of the original Computer Misuse Act, 2011 (2023 Edition), including Sections 11 (unauthorized access to data and recording), 23 (sharing information about children without consent), 26 (content that ridicules, degrades, or demeans), 27, 28, and 29 (malicious information and misuse of social media), as well as criminal libel under Section 162 of the Penal Code.

These judicial pronouncements significantly narrow the scope under which journalists like Timothy Kalyegira can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act for their online commentary. While the initial reports suggested Kalyegira faced Computer Misuse Act charges, the latest information indicates he was charged with broadcasting without a license under the Uganda Communications Act, Cap 103. This shift, whether due to evolving police investigations or a strategic move by the prosecution, suggests that with many of the Computer Misuse Act's speech-related provisions now nullified, authorities may resort to other existing laws to regulate media and online content. Kalyegira's previous encounters with the law, including charges of sedition and criminal libel in 2010 and 2011 (which were later dismissed and sedition declared unconstitutional), illustrate a consistent pattern of legal pressure on critical voices in Uganda.

The case of Timothy Kalyegira, initially reported to involve charges under the Computer Misuse Act, serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by journalists and media practitioners in Uganda. While the specific charges against Kalyegira ultimately fell under the Uganda Communications Act, the broader context of digital regulation remains critical. The recent Constitutional Court rulings, particularly the nullification of Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act, 2011, and the entire Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, represent significant victories for freedom of expression and digital rights in Uganda. These judgments have dismantled some of the most problematic legal tools previously used to criminalise online speech, including provisions on offensive communication, malicious information, and hate speech.

For legal practitioners, these developments necessitate a thorough understanding of the current, significantly narrowed scope of the Computer Misuse Act. While the judicial branch has demonstrated a commitment to upholding constitutional rights, the continued use of other regulatory frameworks, such as the Uganda Communications Act, to target journalists indicates that vigilance remains paramount. Practitioners must advise clients on the evolving legal landscape, prepare for potential challenges under alternative statutes, and continue to advocate for legislative reforms that align fully with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. The ongoing monitoring of cases like Kalyegira's will be crucial to assess how the state adapts its enforcement strategies in light of these landmark judicial decisions, and whether the spirit of free expression will truly prevail in Uganda's digital sphere.