Uganda’s Computer Misuse Law After the 2026 Constitutional Court Decision: What It Means for Freedom of Expression

Uganda’s digital rights landscape has entered a significant new phase following the Constitutional Court’s decision to nullify key provisions introduced through the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022. The decision, delivered in March 2026, has important implications for freedom of expression, journalism, access to information and the way online communication is regulated in Uganda. At the same time, recent efforts by the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) and the Judicial Training Institute to strengthen judicial understanding of digital evidence show that Uganda’s justice system is continuing to adapt to the growing complexity of digital communication and technology-related disputes.

The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament on 8 September 2022 and received presidential assent on 14 October 2022. The amendments subsequently became part of the Computer Misuse Act, 2023 Edition. Several of the amended provisions attracted concern from journalists, civil society organisations, lawyers and digital rights advocates because of their potential impact on online expression.

The major legal change came in March 2026 when the Constitutional Court considered consolidated petitions challenging the amendments. The Court found that Parliament had passed the 2022 Amendment without complying with the required parliamentary procedure for establishing quorum. As a result, the Court declared the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 null and void. The Court also found that the challenged provisions were problematic because of their breadth and ambiguity and their implications for constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of expression and access to information.

Among the provisions affected were sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act, 2023 Edition. These provisions covered a range of conduct involving computers, electronic communication and social media. The judgment therefore represents more than a technical change to cybercrime legislation. It is also a significant constitutional development concerning the relationship between regulation of digital spaces and fundamental rights.

For freedom of expression, the decision is particularly important because online platforms have become an essential space for Ugandans to participate in public debate, share information, criticise institutions and report matters of public interest. When laws regulating online communication use vague or excessively broad language, there is a risk that people may restrict their own expression because they are uncertain about what could expose them to criminal liability. This is commonly described as a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

The Constitutional Court’s reasoning reinforces an important principle: the existence of harmful or unlawful online conduct does not, by itself, justify unrestricted limitations on digital expression. Restrictions on fundamental rights must have a clear legal basis and must satisfy constitutional standards. The Court’s decision therefore places renewed emphasis on legality, clarity and proportionality when the State regulates communication in digital spaces.

This does not mean that Uganda has become a lawless digital environment. The nullification of the challenged provisions did not abolish the entire Computer Misuse Act. The Uganda Communications Commission itself has emphasised that other provisions of the law remain applicable and that the decision should not be interpreted as meaning that there is no regulation governing the use of computers and social media in Uganda.

The distinction is important. Digital rights are not the absence of responsibility online. Freedom of expression exists alongside other rights and legitimate public interests, including privacy, security and protection from unlawful conduct. The challenge for lawmakers and justice institutions is to ensure that measures addressing genuine digital harms do not unnecessarily restrict legitimate speech, journalism, political participation or access to information.

The March 2026 decision also has consequences for ongoing and future criminal proceedings. Following the judgment, the Attorney General advised that prosecutions arising from the nullified provisions should be halted and that no new arrests should be made under those provisions. Government subsequently indicated that it would not appeal the Constitutional Court decision and would instead return the matter to Parliament for proper consideration.

While the constitutional litigation has focused attention on the substance and legality of digital offences, another important conversation is taking place within Uganda’s justice sector: whether judges, prosecutors and other justice actors have the technical knowledge necessary to properly understand digital evidence.

In August 2026, the Uganda Communications Commission, working with the Judicial Training Institute, convened a three-day capacity-building programme for judges, prosecutors, advocates and other justice-sector actors. The engagement focused on emerging Information and Communications Technology disputes, digital evidence, cybersecurity, data protection, online content regulation, digital transactions and emerging technologies.

The focus on digital evidence is particularly significant. As more disputes and criminal cases involve social media posts, electronic communications, mobile devices, online accounts, photographs, videos and other electronically generated information, courts increasingly have to consider questions about the authenticity, reliability, integrity and admissibility of such material. Digital evidence can be technically complex because information may be copied, transferred, altered, deleted or stored across different systems and jurisdictions.

For justice institutions, this creates a need for stronger digital literacy and appropriate evidence-handling practices. Judges do not necessarily need to become computer scientists, but they need sufficient understanding of digital technologies to interrogate evidence properly and make decisions based on established legal and evidentiary principles. The recent UCC and Judicial Training Institute engagement recognises precisely this changing reality. The Deputy Chief Justice, Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, emphasised the importance of understanding technology, evidence and sector regulation while maintaining judicial independence, fairness, impartiality, legality and due process.

For digital rights advocates, this development presents an important opportunity. Better judicial understanding of technology can strengthen the administration of justice, particularly in cases where digital evidence is central to the dispute. It can also help courts distinguish between genuine cyber-related offences and legitimate digital expression. This distinction matters because technology can be used both as a tool for committing unlawful acts and as a platform through which citizens exercise constitutionally protected rights.

The current moment therefore presents Uganda with two connected responsibilities. The first is legislative: future cybercrime and digital regulation must be drafted in a manner that is precise, constitutionally compliant and sufficiently narrow to address genuine harms without unnecessarily criminalising legitimate expression. The second is institutional: the judiciary, prosecutors, investigators and regulators must develop the technical capacity required to interpret and apply digital laws fairly.

For journalists, activists, researchers and ordinary internet users, the developments are a reminder that digital rights are closely connected to broader constitutional rights. The ability to publish, comment, investigate, criticise and access information online is increasingly inseparable from participation in public life. At the same time, responsible digital participation remains important, and existing laws addressing unlawful conduct continue to apply.

At Shetechtive Uganda, we see this moment as part of a wider conversation about digital rights and feminist approaches to technology governance in Uganda. The question should not simply be whether Uganda needs laws to regulate digital spaces. It is also whether those laws protect people while preserving the internet as a space for expression, participation, access to information and accountability.

The nullification of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 therefore provides an opportunity to rethink digital regulation rather than simply replace one set of provisions with another. As Parliament considers the way forward and justice institutions strengthen their capacity to handle digital evidence, Uganda has an opportunity to build a digital legal framework that is technologically informed, constitutionally grounded and respectful of fundamental freedoms.

The future of digital rights in Uganda will depend not only on what Parliament legislates, but also on how courts, regulators, law enforcement agencies, technology companies, journalists, civil society and citizens understand and apply those rules. In a society where an increasing proportion of public conversation takes place online, protecting freedom of expression must remain central to the conversation about how Uganda governs technology.