By Spy Uganda
Uganda’s justice system is undergoing a significant shift after the Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, ordered an immediate halt to arrests and prosecutions based on key provisions of the Computer Misuse law, following a landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court of Uganda.
In a directive issued on March 18 to state prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, Kiwanuka instructed that all enforcement of the contested provisions cease, a day after the court declared them null and void.
“The impugned provisions were null and void,” Kiwanuka stated, attributing the ruling to Parliament’s failure to meet quorum requirements during the law’s passage.
The unanimous decision, delivered on March 17 by a panel of five justices, centered on procedural integrity in lawmaking. The court found that Parliament breached its own rules, specifically quorum requirements under its Rules of Procedure, rendering parts of the Computer Misuse Act legally defective from the outset.
The nullified provisions, Sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Act (2023 Edition), alongside Section 162 of the Penal Code, had been widely used in recent prosecutions related to online speech and digital conduct.
Kiwanuka’s directive leaves no ambiguity. All criminal proceedings arising from the affected provisions must be terminated, and no further arrests should be made under those sections.
However, the order does not extend retroactive relief to individuals already convicted under the annulled laws, meaning they will continue serving their sentences unless separate legal remedies are pursued.
The now-invalidated law originated as a Private Member’s Bill introduced in July 2022 by Muhammad Nsereko. It was later processed by Parliament’s ICT Committee, then chaired by Moses Magogo, and passed during a sitting presided over by Speaker Anita Among.
From its inception, the legislation faced strong opposition, particularly from lawmakers who argued that it duplicated existing laws and posed risks to constitutional freedoms. Among its most prominent critics was Gorret Namugga, who authored a minority report rejecting the Bill entirely.
“The entire Bill should not stand as part of our laws,” Namugga argued at the time, warning that several provisions were redundant or unconstitutional.
Legal analysts say the Attorney General’s directive was both necessary and inevitable. Timothy Chemonges of the Centre for Policy Analysis noted that enforcing a nullified law would violate fundamental rights.
“You cannot continue arresting or prosecuting people under provisions that are void. It would be a clear abuse of the legal process,” he said.
Chemonges added that the ruling exposes deeper institutional challenges, particularly inconsistent adherence to parliamentary procedures. “Rules of procedure are not cosmetic. They are essential to the legitimacy of any law we pass,” he emphasized.
At the same time, the decision creates a temporary legal gap in regulating online conduct, an area the government had sought to strengthen amid growing concerns over misinformation, cyber harassment, and digital abuse.
Kiwanuka has ruled out appealing the decision, instead recommending that the law be returned to Parliament for reconsideration and proper enactment, with strict adherence to procedural requirements and broader public participation.
The development sets the stage for renewed national debate on how Uganda can balance digital regulation with constitutional protections, particularly the right to freedom of expression under Article 29 of the Constitution.
For many rights advocates, the court’s ruling marks a critical reset, reinforcing the principle that due process must underpin all lawmaking. As Parliament considers revisiting the legislation, the challenge remains to craft a legal framework that is both enforceable and respectful of fundamental rights in an increasingly digital society.
