In September 2022, we wrote of how the Computer Misuse Act No.2 of 2011 was amended by Law Makers in Uganda to undermine freedom of speech and expression. The Amendment which was passed into law and assented to by the President elicited public outrage in regard to its totalitarian tendencies – that arguably target Ugandan activists, human rights defenders, journalists and political actors. The law has been used to harass dissenting voices and opinions and was even considered by technocrats at the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance as not good enough to pass as an Act of Parliament and recommended for its withdrawal.
On January 10, 2023, the Constitutional Court in Uganda made a verdict to the Act in a petition that was filed by human rights activists Andrew Karamagi and Robert Shaka of Uganda earlier in 2016. In their application, the petitioners argued that Section 25 on Offensive Communication of the Computer Misuse Act No.2 of 2011 is inconsistent with Article 29 (1) of the Ugandan Constitution. The 5 Justices of the Court agreed that the section be scrapped because its vague, overly broad and do not define the actual offence.
Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act No.2 2011 reads:
“Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication whether or not a conversation ensues commits a misdemeanor and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-four currency points or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.”
The Independent Magazine – A print publication in Uganda, citing the full judgement of the Constitutional Court reported that the Judge; Justice Kenneth Kakuru ruled that:
“In a democratic and free society, prosecuting people for the content of their communication is a violation of what falls within the guarantees of freedom of expression in a democratic society”. The Judges pointed that General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee stated that any limitation to freedom of expression must be absolutely necessary.
The judge further contented that “I find that the impugned Section is unjustifiable as it curtails the freedom of speech in a free and democratic society. Secondly, Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act No.2 of 2011 does not specify what constitutes offensive communication. To that extent, it does not afford sufficient guidance for legal debate”.
The verdict is a welcome development and a triumph towards freedom of speech and expression in Uganda. It further underscores the important work that stakeholders – including activists such as the petitioners bring on board towards defending Uganda’s democratization process.
Article by
Moses Owiny
