Constitutional Court Nullifies Computer Misuse Act

[Mwizukulu wa Buganda]

Uganda’s Constitutional Court has nullified the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, ruling that Parliament passed the law in violation of constitutional procedure, in a landmark decision with major implications for free speech and digital regulation in the country.

In a unanimous judgment by Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka, Christopher Madrama Byaruhanga and Monica Mugenyi Nambayo, the court found that Parliament failed to comply with quorum requirements when passing the law.

“Clearly, there is no evidence in the Hansard that there was any concern about whether the Members in the House… constituted the requisite quorum of one third of Members entitled to vote,” the court ruled.

The provisions of the Computer Misuse Act which court said were unconstitutional, as Parliament passed them without the required quorum are:

Section 11: Criminalized unauthorized access, interception of data, or voice/video recording of another person.

Section 23: Criminalized unauthorized sharing or transmission of any information about a child.

Section 26: Criminalized sharing computer-based information likely to ridicule, degrade, or demean a person, or promote hostility based on tribe, religion, or gender.

Section 27: Criminalized sending or sharing unsolicited information, unless it was in the public interest.

Section 28: Criminalized sending or sharing “malicious information” relating to another person.

Section 29: Prohibited the “misuse of social media” by sharing prohibited information under a disguised or false identity.

Additionally, Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act (criminal libel) were declared unconstitutional due to being vague and ambiguous

Omissions

The judges said the official parliamentary record showed “glaring omissions” in how the law was passed, including failure by the Speaker to confirm attendance or record how Members voted.

“The evidence… does not show that the Speaker complied with the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure… Instead, the copy of the Hansard exposed glaring omissions in the process of passing the Bill into an Act of Parliament,” the ruling stated.

According to the court, the Hansard simply recorded proceedings as “question put and agreed to,” without indicating how many Members were present, how they voted, or whether quorum had been established.

“There is also clearly no record that the Speaker ascertained whether there was quorum before the vote was taken… nor is there any evidence that any of those present abstained,” the judges added.

The court noted that this was despite evidence of dissent in Parliament, including a minority report opposing the bill.

“I would therefore find that when Parliament passed the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022… it did not comply… and the passing of the Bill… was inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution, making the… Act null and void,” the ruling said.

“It follows that all of the impugned provisions… are null and void and there is no need to interpret them.”

Who challenged the law

The case arose from consolidated Constitutional Petitions No. 34, 37 and 42 of 2022 filed by a broad coalition of Ugandan petitioners.

They included

The petitioners include Lillian Drabo, Muhindo Morgan, Wandera Andrew, Agather Atuhaire, Hon. Winnie Kiiza, the Editors’ Guild, the African Centre for Media Excellence, Strategic Response International, the Centre for Public Interest Law, and Unwanted Witness Uganda.

The petitioners were represented by lawyers including Eron Kiiza, George Musisi, Michael Aboneka and others.

In Petition No. 34, the applicants argued that the amendments violated principles of participatory democracy, saying provisions—especially those on misuse of social media—were introduced without adequate public consultation.

Petitioners in Petition No. 37 focused on procedure, arguing Parliament passed the law without confirming quorum at critical stages, while also challenging the provisions as vague and inconsistent with constitutional protections on free expression and fair hearing.

The Uganda Law Society, in Petition No. 42, raised similar concerns, arguing that the Speaker failed to comply with constitutional and parliamentary rules requiring verification of quorum before voting.

Across the petitions, the applicants also challenged several provisions of the law as overly broad, saying they criminalised a wide range of online activity, including sharing information, anonymous communication and so-called “malicious” messages.

Criminal libel struck down

In a separate but significant finding, the court declared Section 162 of the Penal Code Act on criminal libel unconstitutional.

“The definition of the misdemeanour called ‘libel’… is vague and ambiguous,” the court ruled, adding that the offence contravened Uganda’s obligations under international human rights law.

The decision means criminal defamation is no longer enforceable in Uganda, leaving civil remedies as the main avenue for resolving such disputes.

Musisi reacts

Lawyer George Musisi, who was part of the legal team for the petitioners, welcomed the ruling, describing it as a major victory for constitutionalism and civil liberties.

“This judgment confirms that Parliament must follow the Constitution and its own rules. Laws that limit rights must be properly enacted,” Musisi said.

He added that the decision restores protections for freedom of expression, particularly online.

What it means

The ruling effectively returns Uganda’s digital legal framework to the position before the 2022 amendments, removing provisions that had been widely criticised for restricting online speech.

Legal observers say the judgment sends a strong message to Parliament that both the process and content of laws must comply with the Constitution, especially where fundamental rights are concerned.

For many Ugandans, especially journalists, activists and social media users, the decision is expected to ease legal pressure that had grown under the amended law.

List of the nullified Laws.
Parliament passed the computer misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022, into an Act of parliament without complying with provisions of Rule 24.

The enactment of the Computer (Amendment) Bill into an act of parliament without complying with rule 24(31 of the Rules of procedure of Parliament was inconsistent with articles 88 and 89 of the constitution, and as a result, the computer misuse( Amendment) Act, 2022, was null and void

The Provisions of the Computer misuse act (2023 Edition) that were challenged in constitutional petitions 34,37 and 42 of 2022 are therefore null and void because they were enacted without following the law.

The definition of the Misdemeanour called Libel under section 162 of the penal code Act in section 163 thereof is vague and ambiguous. To that extent, it contravenes to the provisions of article 19(3) (a) of ICCPR and thus Objective XXVIII(i) (b) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Constitution.

Section 162 of the Penal Code Act contravenes Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights; and section 13 that defines the term defamation therein does not meet the standard of the law that is required by article 9(2) of the Charter, and is inconsistent therewith to the extent and therefore null and void. Daily monitor

Source: https://nilepost.co.ug/news/328040/constitutional-court-nullifies-computer-misuse-act

 

[keeti]

interesting

 

[Eronda]

The Constitutional Court has struck down the Computer Misuse Act, ruling that Parliament passed the law in violation of constitutional procedures, in a landmark decision that overturns years of controversial prosecutions linked to online speech.

The Constitutional Court has declared the Computer Misuse Act null and void, finding that Parliament enacted the law in contravention of the Constitution, effectively invalidating its legal standing.

The ruling follows a petition filed by a coalition of civil society actors, including Unwanted Witness Uganda, African Centre for Media Excellence, and the Editors' Guild, alongside individual petitioners.

At the centre of the controversy is the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, introduced by outgoing Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko.

The law was passed by Parliament in September 2022 amid widespread public criticism and protests from rights groups, journalists, and opposition figures who warned it would be used to police online speech.

The Computer Misuse Act was originally designed to regulate cybercrime, addressing offences such as unauthorised access to computer systems, cyber harassment, and electronic fraud.

However, the 2022 amendments expanded its scope to include vague and broadly defined offences such as “offensive communication,” “hate speech,” and the spread of “malicious information.”

Critics argued that these provisions gave authorities sweeping powers to target dissent and criminalize free expression, particularly on social media platforms.

Over the years, the state has relied on the law to arrest, charge, and secure convictions against several Ugandans—many of them young activists, TikTokers seeking engagements and government critics.

Individuals were prosecuted and, in some cases, jailed for allegedly sharing content deemed offensive or misleading, even when such expression fell within the bounds of political commentary.

The Constitutional Court’s decision now casts doubt on those convictions, with legal experts noting that offences under a law declared unconstitutional cannot stand.

Petitioners had argued that Parliament rushed the amendment through without adequate scrutiny and in violation of constitutional safeguards, effectively undermining democratic legislative processes.

In its ruling, the court underscored a key principle: laws passed in violation of the Constitution cannot be sustained, regardless of their intent or subsequent application.

The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for digital rights, freedom of expression, and ongoing cases previously instituted under the now-invalid law.

Legal analysts say the decision could trigger appeals, compensation claims, and the review of past convictions tied to the Act.

Source: https://nilepost.co.ug/news/328040/constitutional-court-nullifies-computer-misuse-act

This has been a suprise move, i did not expect this, What an interesting time to be alive,
What is the fate of those who were imprisoned on grounds of the computer misuse act