The Constitutional Court has nullified key provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, ruling that Parliament failed to follow constitutional and procedural requirements when passing the law — a decision that could upend ongoing criminal cases built on the now invalidated provisions.
In a unanimous verdict, a five-justice panel led by Justice Irene Mulyagonja found that Parliament did not ensure the required quorum was present during crucial stages of debate and voting on the amendments in 2022, rendering the contested sections inconsistent with the Constitution.
“It is my view that these anomalies resolve the question as to whether or not there was a quorum on the passing of the Bill into law in favour of the petitioners,” Justice Mulyagonja wrote in her lead judgment, noting “glaring omissions” in the official parliamentary record.
The court specifically ruled that Parliament failed to confirm that at least one third of legislators were present — a mandatory requirement under parliamentary rules — before enacting the amendments.
Judges Rule Law Was Defective
In declaring the amendments null and void, the court struck down several sections that had expanded the original Computer Misuse Act to criminalise broad categories of online activity, including the sharing of “malicious,” hateful, or unsolicited information and certain forms of intercepted or anonymous communication.
Justice Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka, concurring with the majority, underscored the procedural failure: “Clearly, there is no evidence in the Hansard that there was any concern about whether the members in the House… constituted the requisite quorum,” the ruling said.
The court issued a permanent injunction restraining the government and its agencies from enforcing the invalidated sections, including parts of the Act that had been widely applied in cases involving alleged offensive speech or online conduct.
Reaction and Implications
The judgment is being welcomed by free expression advocates. The Uganda Law Society described the ruling as a major win for constitutionalism and media freedom, noting that the invalidated sections were vague, overly broad, and susceptible to abuse.
Opposition figures and digital rights groups had challenged the law on grounds that it impeded rights to freedom of expression and access to information, especially when used to prosecute journalists, activists, and social media users.
Legal experts say the court’s decision is expected to unravel ongoing and future prosecutions based solely on the struck down provisions, although the original Computer Misuse Act of 2011 — which governs unauthorised access, fraud, and data interception — remains in force.
The ruling marks a significant moment in Uganda’s digital rights landscape and raises fresh questions about how online speech should be regulated within constitutional bounds.
The case reflects growing public debate over digital regulation and freedom of expression, particularly in a context where online platforms play an increasingly central role in civic engagement and political discourse.