Uganda’s Constitutional Court has delivered a far-reaching judgment striking down key provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, in a decision that significantly reshapes the legal landscape governing digital expression. Sitting as a panel of five, and led by Justice Irene Mulyagonja, the Court held that the impugned provisions were unconstitutional for being vague, overly broad, and enacted in violation of mandatory parliamentary procedure. The Court consequently declared the law null and void ab initio, effectively erasing its legal force.
In a strongly worded decision, the Court found that sections criminalizing online communication lacked precision and created sweeping offences capable of arbitrary enforcement. The provisions, including those penalizing “offensive communication” and related conduct, were held to unjustifiably limit the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The justices further ruled that the failure by Parliament to comply with Rule 24(3) of its own Rules of Procedure rendered the entire enactment process unconstitutional, in breach of Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
The judgment carries immediate and profound consequences for individuals affected by the now-invalidated law. Persons currently on remand or awaiting trial under the impugned provisions are entitled to have charges withdrawn, as there exists no lawful basis for their prosecution. For those already convicted, the decision opens the door to appeals, sentence reviews, or applications to set aside convictions on grounds that they were founded on a nullity. In effect, the Court reaffirmed the principle that no person may be deprived of liberty under a law that is constitutionally defective.
Beyond procedural irregularities, the Court took issue with the substantive nature of the offences, particularly their failure to meet the threshold of legal certainty required in criminal law. By criminalizing broadly defined speech, the Act created a chilling effect, deterring legitimate public discourse, media activity, and digital participation. The Court held that such limitations were neither necessary nor proportionate in a democratic society and were inconsistent with Uganda’s obligations under international human rights instruments, including protections on free expression.
Legal analysts and civil society actors have described the ruling as a defining moment in the protection of digital rights in Uganda. The decision not only curtails the State’s ability to police online speech through ambiguous legislation but also reinforces judicial oversight over Parliament’s legislative process. By issuing a permanent injunction against enforcement and awarding costs against the Attorney General, the Court sent a clear signal that constitutional compliance is not optional, and that laws infringing fundamental freedoms will not withstand judicial scrutiny.
