Trash That Vague Thing! Court Throws Out Controversial Computer Misuse Amendments

By Frank Kamuntu

The Constitutional Court of Uganda has struck down key provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, declaring them unconstitutional in a landmark judgment that strengthens protections for free expression and digital rights.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka, Christopher Madrama Byaruhanga and Monica Mugenyi Nambayo, the court ruled that Parliament violated constitutional procedure when passing the law, rendering the impugned provisions null and void.

At the heart of the ruling was Parliament’s failure to meet quorum requirements as mandated under the Constitution. The judges found no evidence in the official parliamentary record (Hansard) that the required minimum number of Members of Parliament was present during the passage of the law.

“The record shows glaring omissions,” the court noted, pointing out that proceedings were simply recorded as “question put and agreed to,” without indicating attendance, voting patterns, or confirmation of quorum.

The court concluded that this failure breached constitutional provisions governing legislative procedure, making the enactment invalid.

Key Provisions Struck Down

The court nullified several controversial sections of the law, including:

• Section 23: Criminalizing unauthorized sharing of information about a child
• Section 26: Penalizing communication deemed to ridicule, demean, or promote hostility
• Section 27: Outlawing unsolicited communication unless in the public interest
• Section 29: Restricting social media use under false or disguised identities

Other provisions related to “malicious information” and broad restrictions on online communication were also invalidated.

Additionally, the court declared Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act—covering criminal libel—unconstitutional, citing vagueness and inconsistency with international human rights standards.

In the lead judgment, Justice Mulyagonja emphasized that the struck-down provisions were overly broad and failed the constitutional test of legality.

The court found that terms such as “malicious information” and “unsolicited communication” were not clearly defined, leaving them open to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement.

“These provisions could criminalize legitimate expression,” the judges observed, warning that they posed a serious threat to freedom of speech and access to information.

Background Of The Case

The petitions were brought by a coalition of civil society organizations, journalists, lawyers, and activists, including the Uganda Law Society and the African Centre for Media Excellence.

The applicants argued that the amendments not only violated procedural requirements but also undermined democratic principles by limiting public participation and restricting online expression.

While the Attorney General of Uganda defended the law as necessary to regulate harmful online behavior, the court held that the measures went too far.

The decision effectively blocks enforcement of the nullified provisions, some of which had already been used to prosecute social media users and journalists.

Legal experts say the ruling restores Uganda’s legal framework to its pre-2022 position and reinforces constitutional safeguards around freedom of expression.