Constitutional Court Strikes Down the Computer Misuse Act 2022 (Uganda)

On 17^th March, 2026, in its ruling in Consolidated Constitutional Petitions NO. 34, 37 & 42 of 2022, Uganda Law Society V Attorney General, the Constitutional Court of Uganda found that Parliament passed the Computer Misuse Bill on September 8, 2022 without complying with Rule 24(3) of its Rules of Procedure, which requires verification of quorum before any vote on legislation. This procedural flaw rendered the entire process unconstitutional.

This is in a unanimous judgment delivered by a panel of five justices of the Constitutional Court, with Justice Irene Mulyagonja writing the lead judgement and Justices Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka, John Mike Musisi, Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema and Esta Nambayo concurring with her.

The Court further held that the Speaker of Parliament acted inconsistently with Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution, which govern the conduct of parliamentary business and the requirements for quorum. Parliament failed to follow constitutional requirements in passing the amendment, particularly regarding quorum and legislative process.

The law had been challenged by a coalition of civil society organizations, lawyers, and journalists, including Alternative Digi talk, the Uganda Law Society, and the Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda claiming that the Act introduced stricter controls on online communication, criminalizing unauthorized access to information and sharing of information without consent, which have been widely criticized as a tool to stifle dissent and journalism.

The petitioners contested both the procedure used to pass the law and several of its substantive provisions. The provisions were deemed vague, overly broad, and inconsistent with freedoms guaranteed under Articles 29 (freedom of expression) and 43 (limitations on rights must be justifiable). This made the law very draconian in nature.

This judgement reinforces the need for Parliament to have compliance in law making. Legislative processes must strictly adhere to constitutional procedure; otherwise, laws are unenforceable. The ruling reaffirmed that constitutional procedure is the backbone of legitimate law-making.

It also expands the protection of digital rights, freedom of speech and press activity. The ruling is widely seen as a victory for constitutionalism on the side of the citizens.

The outcome of this judgement has halted executive and legislative Arms of government attempts to regulate online spaces without constitutional safeguards.

This case also sets precedent that procedural irregularities can nullify entire statutes, not just sections.

According to the Constitutional Court, for a law that creates criminal offences; to be valid, it must meet the principle of legality by being clear, precise and foreseeable. Justice Mulyagonja noted that vague and ambiguous provisions make it difficult for individuals to regulate their conduct and understand what is prohibited.

In the same judgement, the court examined Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, which criminalizes defamation. The Justices established that the definition of “libel” under Section 163 of the Act is vague and ambiguous and does not meet the required standard of precision in criminal law.

Justice Mulyagonja further stated that the definition fails to clearly specify the prohibited conduct, making it uncertain and difficult to apply. A person of ordinary intelligence should be able to know in advance what conduct is criminal and the consequences of violating the law.

The court further observed that while defamation laws may serve the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others, criminal sanctions are a more restrictive measure compared to civil remedies. It noted that criminal defamation can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, particularly for journalists and media practitioners, who may resort to self-censorship to avoid prosecution.

The judgement cited comparative jurisprudence and international standards discouraging the use of criminal sanctions for defamation, noting that civil remedies are less restrictive and more appropriate.

The court found that Section 162 does not meet the test of necessity and proportionality, as required under international human rights law. It also held that the provision is inconsistent with Uganda’s obligations under the African Charter as well as the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court has declared that Section 162 of the Penal Code Act contravenes Article 9 of the African Charter, and that the definition of defamation under Section 163 does not meet the required legal standard and is therefore unconstitutional to that extent.

The court has also referred to international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires that limitations on rights such as freedom of expression must be clearly defined in law.

The judgement has also relied on principles developed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly the requirement that any limitation must be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

This now implies that those facing charges of Computer Misuse claims like Ibrahim Musana (Pressure 24/7), a popular TikToker remanded to Luzira Prison for hate speech against the First Son, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka, a lawyer who has been on remand multiple times regarding Computer Misuse charges, Edward Awebwa, then 24 years old, was arrested and later convicted for allegedly “abusing” President Museveni, his wife, and son. He is currently serving a six-year sentence at Olia Farm Prison in Adjumani, are likely to have their charges dropped and walk free. Traditionally, when the law under which a prosecution is conducted is nullified, the cases automatically abate. This principle was observed in the 1997 Mwenda and Onyango Obbo prosecution for publication of false news, which was voided following the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Onyango and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 20 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 56 (11 February 2004).

However, those who have served their time can’t benefit from the nullification of this law since the law doesn’t not work retrospective.

To conclude, drafting laws affecting fundamental rights must balance state interests with constitutional rights and freedoms. Procedural shortcuts and irregularities undermine legitimacy and invite judicial nullification.