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.
According to ChimpReports, an online publication, In a unanimous judgment by Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka, Christopher Madrama Byaruhanga, Monica Mugenyi Nambayo and Mike Chibita, 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 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, as reported by ChimpReports.
“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.
Kampala City Guide
They included Alternative Digitalk Limited, activists such as Norman Tumuhimbise and Agather Atuhaire, and organisations like the Human Rights Network for Journalists (HRNJ-U), Chapter Four Uganda, CIPESA, Unwanted Witness, the African Centre for Media Excellence and the Uganda Law Society.
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.
SOURCE: ChimpReports
Do you want to send us a story? SMS or Call +256-787-551-001 or WhatsApp +256-770-450-528 or Submit on on email eetoilnewsdesk@gmail.com
