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.
Posts
0 Comments