The Constitutional Court has struck down the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022 and key provisions of the Penal Code Act related to libel and defamation, declaring them unconstitutional and invalid.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka, who agreed with the analysis and findings of her colleague, Justice Irene Mulyagonja, in the judgment prepared in draft form.
The Constitutional Court’s decision was made by a five‑member bench,Justice Irene Mulyagonja, JCC as Presiding/lead justice on the panel, Justice Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka, JCC, Justice John Mike Musisi, JCC,Justice Jessy (Jesse) Byaruhanga Rugyema, JCC, Justice Esta Nambayo, JCC.
The entire panel agreed that the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022 was unconstitutional because Parliament passed it without following proper procedure.
They also ruled that key provisions of the Computer Misuse Act and the libel provisions in the Penal Code Act were invalid because they violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and are vague or overly broad.
The case was filed by the Uganda Law Society against the Attorney General, challenging the legality of the 2022 amendment to the Computer Misuse Act, as well as certain sections of the Penal Code that define libel and defamation. The petitioners argued that the laws were enacted improperly and contravened both the Constitution and international human rights obligations.
Justice Katunguka outlined several critical findings in her judgment:
Procedural Irregularities in Parliament
The court found that Parliament passed the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill 2022 into law without complying with Rule 24(3) of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament, which is mandated under Article 94 of the Constitution. This procedural failure rendered the enactment inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution, which govern the proper passage of laws. As a result, the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022 was declared null and void.
Article 88 speaks of Quorum of Parliament
This article says: The number of members required for Parliament to conduct business (quorum) must be set out in the Rules of Procedure made under Article 94. The Rules of Procedure may specify different quorums for different types of business.
Article 89 focuses on voting in Parliament
This article states: Any question or bill in Parliament must be decided by a majority of members present and voting , as prescribed by Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The Speaker does not have a casting vote if votes are tied.
In the court case, Rule 24(3) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure was relevant because the court found that Parliament failed to follow its own procedural rules under Article 94 when passing the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill. That procedural flaw made the law inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89 and therefore unconstitutional
Invalid Provisions of the 2023 Computer Misuse Act
Sections of the Computer Misuse Act (2023 Edition) that were challenged in Constitutional Petitions 34, 37, and 42 of 2022 were also declared invalid. The court noted that because they were enacted without following the required legal procedures, they have no force of law.
Libel and Defamation Laws Unconstitutional
The court also addressed the definitions of “libel” and “defamation” under Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act, finding them vague and ambiguous. Justice Katunguka stated that these sections contravene Article 19(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects freedom of expression.
Furthermore, Section 162 was found to contravene Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Section 163 failed to meet the clarity standards required under the same Charter. The court also highlighted that these provisions violate Uganda’s National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically Objective XXVIII(i)(b), which obliges Uganda to respect international human rights commitments.
ICCPR Article 19 (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)
This is a key international treaty that Uganda has ratified. Its relevant provisions are: Everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including seeking, receiving, and imparting information and ideas by any media.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) , Article 9 : Right to Information and Expression , Under the African Charter: Every individual has the right to receive information. Every individual has the right to express and disseminate his or her opinions within the law.
The court found Section 162 of the Penal Code which criminalized libel , contravened Article 9 because it did not meet the clarity and necessity standards required under international and regional human rights law
Court Orders
In addition to declaring the laws unconstitutional, Justice Katunguka issued several specific orders:
A permanent injunction restraining the Attorney General, all government agencies, authorities, and officials from enforcing the impugned provisions of: Sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act 2003, and Section 162 of the Penal Code Act.
The Attorney General was also ordered to pay 30% of the legal costs of the petitioners’ advocates.
The Attorney General’s office is now legally barred from enforcing the affected provisions, and government authorities must review all related digital and criminal statutes to ensure conformity with the Constitution.
President Yoweri Museveni assented to the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022, introducing new offences and penalties aimed at regulating the use of digital platforms and protecting personal data.
The law criminalized unauthorized access, interception, recording, or sharing of information, including recording a person’s voice or video without their consent or accessing personal data without authorization. Individuals convicted of such offences face a fine of up to Shs15 million, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.
The Act also prohibited the sharing of information relating to children without authorization from their parents or guardians.
Additionally, the law criminalized the sharing of false, malicious, misleading, unsolicited, or offensive information, including hate speech and the use of disguised or false identities online.
Under the law, penalties for offences such as sharing information about children, hate speech, unsolicited information, and misleading or malicious information carried a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
Now that it’s gone:
People can use computers, phones, and the internet freely without fear of being prosecuted under the 2022 amendment.
You can post, share, or comment online without worrying that the law itself criminalizes it , unless your actions violate other existing laws (like fraud, hacking, or harassment).
Journalists, bloggers, and social media users are now protected from arbitrary computer misuse claims based solely on the 2022 amendment.
Specific Sections of the Computer Misuse Act 2003 (Sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29)
What they covered: Certain types of online offenses, including unauthorized access, computer interference, or misuse of data.
Now: The sections that were linked to the invalid amendment cannot be enforced, so people cannot be prosecuted under these provisions of the 2003 Act.
Using or sharing information online that was previously restricted under these sections is no longer illegal under this Act. However, this does not mean all computer crimes are legal. Crimes like hacking, stealing data, cyber fraud, or harming others online may still fall under other parts of the law.
Libel and Defamation Laws (Sections 162 , 163 of the Penal Code Act)
What they covered: Made it a criminal offense to write or publish something that could harm someone’s reputation (libel/defamation).
Now: You cannot be criminally prosecuted under Sections 162 and 163 for statements that are libelous or defamatory, these sections are invalid.
This gives more freedom of expression, meaning: Journalists can report stories without fear of criminal libel charges.
Social media users can share opinions or critique public figures without risk of being criminally charged under these sections.
However, Civil liability still exists: Even though you cannot be criminally charged, you could still face civil lawsuits for defamation (i.e., being sued for damages).
Therefore you can speak freely, write, post, or share online without fear of criminal charges under the struck-down laws.
The government cannot enforce the Computer Misuse Amendment 2022 or the criminal libel provisions.
Protections for freedom of expression are stronger, but other laws still apply if you commit actual crimes like fraud, hacking, or harassment.
This ruling empowers citizens, journalists, and digital content creators to communicate openly and safely online.
The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 in Uganda was introduced in Parliament by Muhammad Nsereko.
Muhammad Nsereko tabled it as a Private Member’s Bill in Parliament. It was passed by the Parliament of Uganda in September 2022.
Nsereko said the law aimed to: Stop online harassment and cyberbullying, Prevent the unauthorized sharing of people’s personal information, Protect individuals from malicious online attacks.
However, the law became controversial because many critics said it: Restricted freedom of expression, Could be used to arrest journalists, bloggers, and social media users.