In a rare Unanimous decision by the Constitutional Court of Uganda, the Judges have struck down a law that created the offence of offensive communication—a dagger for the critics of the ruling elite in Kampala. Since its enactment in 2011, the Computer Misuse Act in Uganda has been used by the regime to clampdown on dissent. The law which was passed by the predominantly NRM (the ruling party) parliament made it a crime to use to use electronic communication to criticize government officials. Section 25 particularly read:

Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication whether or not a conversation ensues commits a misdemeanor and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-four currency points or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.

This section has been used by mainly lower courts to jail people who have been critical of the ruling class notably Michael Muhima, a university student who used sarcasm to criticize the police spokesperson in the wake of the arrest of Opposition Figure Bobi Wine during the lead up to the 2021 general elections, and Dr. Stella Nyanzi. Dr. Stella Nyanzi in 2017 gained worldwide notoriety when she referred to Uganda longtime ruler Museveni, ‘a pair of buttocks’ for failing to deliver his campaign promises. One a number of occasions, Stella faced arrests, torture, and even a conviction for offensive communication, Cyber Harassment and disturbing the peace of the President and his family.

The irony behind the application of the impugned law is that it was mainly enforced whenever a person was critical of the first family, i.e.; Museveni’s wife who doubles as the minister of education, his son who is a General in the army or other family members who play active roles in government. The law has been a subject of numerous challenges in court as early as 2011 from activists and legal scholars for failing to meet the constitutional threshold.

In a judgement dated and delivered on the 10^th of January 2023, the Constitutional Court finally agreed with the activists that section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act was unconstitutional. The stated that “in a democratic and free society, prosecuting people for the content of their communication is a violation of what falls within guarantees of freedom of expression in a democratic society.”

The decision is a light in the dark in a country where the state is the biggest violator of the right to freedom of expression and other freedoms. It also gives hope to the many activists who have been persecuted for their opinions. At the time of writing this article it remains unclear whether the government would abide by the court’s decision and release all people charged with the offence as well as those convicted of the same. Whereas the consequence of the decision would be the release of those people, it is not as certain in a country decked with impunity and disregard for court decisions.

Rearrests of people released on bail is common place in Uganda with the most recent high profile examples being the re-arrest of two opposition members of Parliament in the precincts of court. The President justified the actions of the security forces and called for bail to be scrapped off. Needless to say that on numerous occasions, he has attacked the judiciary for making decisions that he does not approve of.

Another response from the regime is often to reenact the laws that have been repealed by courts. This is against the constitutional principle of retrospective legislation as recognized in free and democratic societies. It is further yet to be seen whether a government with such a tainted image in disregarding court rulings will hold back from passing promulgating that law again. Suffice to state before the ruling of 10^th January 2023, another amendment to the Act had been passed providing for more restriction to free speech and shielding public officials from scrutiny. The amendment contains arbitrary penalties that would not pass the constitutional test.

The court in delivering the land mark decision affirms the primacy of liberties, it is a brave path taken and we can only hope for more progressive positions in a country that is ranked ‘Not Free’ by the Freedom House index. Nonetheless, the annulment of the specific section is a beckon of progress.