In a landmark decision delivered on March 17th, 2026, Uganda’s Constitutional Court has effectively dismantled key pillars of the country’s controversial Computer Misuse Act, declaring the entire 2022 amendment package null and void and striking down multiple provisions on substantive constitutional grounds.
The unanimous ruling by a five-judge panel marks a seismic shift for digital rights in Uganda, freeing millions of citizens, journalists, activists, and ordinary social media users from the shadow of overly broad cybercrime laws that had long been weaponised to stifle online expression.
The road to the ruling
The Computer Misuse Act, originally enacted in 2011, gained new teeth through the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act of 2022—widely known as the Nsereko Bill after its sponsor, Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko. Passed in September 2022, those amendments introduced and expanded offences targeting online speech, data sharing, and social media activity, drawing sharp criticism from civil society for their vague wording and potential for abuse.
For context, the court had already invalidated Section 25—the infamous “offensive communication” clause—in a 2023 ruling, leaving the 2022 changes as the remaining flashpoint for digital freedoms.
Today’s judgment stems from three consolidated constitutional petitions filed in 2022 by a broad coalition including Unwanted Witness Uganda, the African Centre for Media Excellence, the Uganda Editors’ Guild, and prominent voices such as Lillian Drabo, Muhindo Morgan, Agather Atuhaire, and former MP Hon. Winnie Kiiza. Represented by lawyers Eron Kiiza and George Musisi, the petitioners argued that the amendments violated fundamental rights and were rammed through Parliament without proper procedure.
Procedural failure and substantive unconstitutionality
Led by Justice Irene Mulyagonja and joined by Justices Ketra Kitariisibwa Katunguka, John Mike Musisi, Jesse Rugyema Byaruhanga, and Esta Nambayo, the bench delivered a sweeping verdict on both procedural and substantive grounds.
First, the court ruled that Parliament had flagrantly breached its own Rules of Procedure—specifically Rule 24(3)—when passing the 2022 bill. The Speaker failed to ascertain or record whether the required quorum of one-third of voting members was present, with the Hansard containing no evidence of verification, vote counts, or proper handling of dissent. This procedural lapse alone rendered the entire Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, and all provisions it inserted into the law, null and void under Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
Even setting procedure aside, the judges went further on the merits. They found that several core sections were unconstitutionally vague, overly broad, and imprecise, failing the test of legality and unjustifiably limiting rights under Article 29(1) on freedom of expression, Article 41 on access to information, and Article 43’s proportionality requirements.
The nullified provisions include:
- Section 11, which criminalised unauthorised access, interception of data, or voice and video recordings
- Section 23 on the unauthorised sharing or transmission of any information about a child
- Section 26, targeting the sharing of computer-based information likely to ridicule, degrade, or promote hostility based on tribe, religion, gender, or other identities
- Section 27 on sending or sharing unsolicited information unless deemed in the public interest
- Section 28 on “malicious information” relating to another person
- Section 29, which outlawed the misuse of social media through disguised or false identities
In the same breath, the court struck down Section 162 of the Penal Code Act—along with its supporting definition in Section 163—effectively abolishing criminal defamation and leaving only civil remedies available.
Justice Mulyagonja captured the court’s reasoning succinctly, stating: “The provisions create offences which are vague, ambiguous and imprecise… such laws offend the principle that criminal offences must be clearly defined.”
Court orders and immediate impact
The bench issued a permanent injunction barring the government, police, Director of Public Prosecutions, and all state agencies from enforcing the invalidated sections, while ordering the Attorney General to shoulder a portion of the petitioners’ legal costs.
With the law reverting to its pre-2022 state—minus the already-defunct Section 25—many ongoing prosecutions and investigations rooted in these provisions are expected to collapse. Journalists, bloggers, activists, and everyday Ugandans who use platforms like X, Facebook, WhatsApp, and TikTok for criticism, satire, or information sharing can now operate without the constant threat of arrest for “malicious” posts or “unsolicited” content.
