Blog Details

Uganda’s Constitutional Court has struck down central provisions of the Computer Misuse Act, ruling them unconstitutional and void from inception. A five-justice panel led by Lady Justice Irene Mulyagonja found that the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act of 2022 and key sections of the original 2011 law were passed without a lawful quorum in Parliament and violated constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression and privacy.

“The provisions of the Computer Misuse Act (2023 Edition) that were challenged in Constitutional Petitions 34, 37 and 42 of 2022 are therefore all null and void because they were enacted without following the law,” the court declared in its ruling.

The decision has been celebrated by civil society as a long-overdue check on digital repression though activists warn that history gives little reason for confidence that the government will comply.

A Law Built to Silence.

The petition was filed by a coalition of civil society organisations  including Uganda Law Society, Unwanted Witness Uganda, the African Centre for Media Excellence, and the Centre for Constitutional Governance alongside individual litigants. They argued that the 2022 amendment was rushed through Parliament in September that year without meaningful public participation, adequate scrutiny, or adherence to constitutional legislative safeguards. President Museveni signed it into law in October 2022.

The amendment introduced by Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko  criminalised the sharing of “unsolicited information,” “malicious information,” and the recording of individuals without consent. Critics called the language deliberately vague: broad enough to prosecute almost anyone posting online, and used disproportionately against political dissidents, journalists, and artists.

The court agreed. Beyond the procedural failure, the judges acknowledged the law’s “chilling effect” on free expression. Sections criminalising “offensive communication,” “unsolicited information,” and “malicious information” were found to be overly broad and ambiguous, incompatible with constitutional standards. Also annulled were provisions targeting unauthorised data access, anonymous communication, so-called “misuse of social media,” hate speech and ridicule, and restrictions on sharing information about children.

In a further win for press freedom, the court struck down Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, criminal libel finding it vague, ambiguous, and inconsistent with Uganda’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Why This Matters to EAVA

The East Africa Visual Artists (EAVA) campaign  “Uganda’s Free Speech Under Siege: Repeal the Computer Misuse Act Now”  has been sounding the alarm on this legislation for years. Our campaign gathered hundreds of signatures and documented how the law was weaponised against creators and critics: young people arrested for sharing memes, performers targeted for participating in online poetry nights, artists threatened for satire and commentary.

The provisions on “hate speech” and “unsolicited information” created a climate of fear and self-censorship, particularly in the run-up to the 2026 elections. For visual artists, musicians, poets, and digital storytellers, expressing a political opinion or sharing a critical image online risked arrest.

This ruling validates what EAVA and its allies have consistently argued: that the Computer Misuse Act, as amended, was not a tool of cyber protection but of political suppression.

Faces Behind the Charges.

The ruling carries immediate implications for people currently facing prosecution under the now-voided provisions. Among them:

Lawyer and activist Male Mabirizi, charged and remanded in early 2026 for allegedly sharing “malicious information” about senior judges on TikTok. Popular TikToker Ibrahim Musana known as Pressure 24/7  remanded to Luzira Prison on hate speech charges relating to a post about First Son Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba (he was acquitted of similar charges in a previous case). Aisha Nansubuga, known online as Luwilight, facing hate speech charges in connection with a post about a celebrity.

“If you look at some of the people who have been charged under this law, they are either political activists or civil rights activists people who are in the course of what you would ordinarily call protected free speech, not people who are misusing social media,” said lawyer George Musisi.

Critically, however, the ruling does not apply retrospectively. Those already convicted including Edward Awebwa, 24, sentenced to six years in prison will not automatically benefit. Dozens of TikTokers remain behind bars, their sentences unaffected by the constitutional victory.

Will the Government Comply?

The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the state from enforcing the annulled provisions effectively blocking ongoing and future prosecutions under the invalidated sections. On paper, it is a sweeping order.

In practice, activists are less optimistic. When the Supreme Court previously ruled that civilians could not be tried in military courts, the government did not release the detainees  it manufactured alternative charges and left them in legal limbo.

“Now watch them refuse to free prisoners held under charges from the Computer Misuse Act. They will try to play the delaying game that was played after the Supreme Court struck down that UPDF Act,” warned activist Anthony Natif.

Unwanted Witness Uganda, one of the lead petitioners, struck a measured but hopeful tone: “The judgment carries broader implications for Uganda’s digital civic space. For journalists, human rights defenders, activists, and the wider internet community, it underscores the importance of ensuring that laws governing online expression are precise, proportionate, and consistent with constitutional protections.”

What Happens Next.

The nullification of the Computer Misuse Act is a landmark moment for free expression in Uganda. But for artists, journalists, and activists, a court ruling is only as strong as the state’s willingness to respect it.

Fears persist that the government may respond with new legislation, selective prosecutions under alternative laws, or simple non-compliance. The EAVA campaign will continue to push the know your law cmapgine and  monitoring the situation closely.