The Ugandan Attorney General’s recent guidance against appealing a Constitutional Court decision striking down key provisions of the Computer Misuse Act has sparked concern among legal observers, who argue it risks repeating past failures in legislative reform. The court’s ruling, delivered in consolidated petitions last week, invalidated sections of the 2022 amendment to the Computer Misuse Act and section 162 of the Penal Code Act concerning criminal libel, citing procedural breaches related to quorum during the legislation’s passage. While the Attorney General advised sending the law back to Parliament for re-enactment, critics fear a swift, superficial revision without addressing fundamental constitutional concerns, potentially leading to renewed legal challenges.
This situation echoes a recent pattern in Uganda, where laws struck down by the courts are quickly reintroduced with minimal changes. Last year, sections of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, which allowed for the trial of civilians in military courts, were nullified by the Supreme Court. Within a short timeframe, the UPDF Act was amended, and the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (Amendment) Act, 2025, was passed, prompting further constitutional petitions alleging continued violations of fundamental rights. The current debate surrounding the Computer Misuse Act centers on whether the government will genuinely address the constitutional issues raised by the court, or simply attempt to reinstate the controversial provisions with cosmetic alterations.
The Constitutional Court’s decision focused specifically on the procedural flaw of lacking a quorum during the passage of the 2022 amendments. This means the court did not rule on the substantive merits of the law itself, leaving open the possibility that Parliament could re-approve the same provisions if it adheres to proper procedure. However, legal commentators argue that many of the invalidated sections were inherently problematic, infringing upon fundamental freedoms of expression and privacy guaranteed by the 1995 Ugandan Constitution. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022, for example, were criticized for being overly broad and failing to address any specific gaps in existing legislation.
Concerns Over Ongoing Criminal Proceedings and Judicial Disobedience
A particularly pressing concern is the fate of individuals currently facing criminal charges or serving sentences under the now-nullified provisions of the Computer Misuse Act. The Attorney General’s opinion indicated that convictions secured under the invalidated sections would stand, a position that has drawn sharp criticism. While the Constitutional Court did not explicitly address the retrospective application of its ruling, legal experts contend that convictions based on unconstitutional laws are inherently void and should be overturned. The principle, they argue, is that a law found to be invalid from its inception – *void ab initio* – never legally existed, removing the basis for any conviction obtained under it.
Adding to the controversy is the reported continued detention of individuals charged under the impugned Act, despite the Constitutional Court’s permanent injunction against enforcing the nullified provisions. The case of Male Mabirizi, a lawyer charged under sections 26 and 28 of the Act, has become a focal point. Lawyers representing Mabirizi were compelled to provide the Buganda Road Court with a certified copy of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, only to be met with further demands for a decree – a tactic seen as deliberately delaying justice. The Uganda Law Society has issued a statement expressing concern over the Magistrate’s conduct, suggesting potential external interference and a possible “instrument of personal vendetta” against Mabirizi. The Uganda Law Society’s statement details their concerns and calls for intervention from senior judicial officials.
A Pattern of Legislative Shortcomings
The situation with the Computer Misuse Act is not isolated. Several petitions remain pending before the Constitutional Court challenging amendments to the UPDF Act, alleging continued violations of constitutional provisions prohibiting the trial of civilians by military courts. These petitions specifically target sections 117A (clauses 29 and 30) and Clause 82 of the amended UPDF Act, which reinstate the jurisdiction of the Court Martial over civilian cases – a practice previously deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This recurring cycle of legislative action, judicial nullification, and subsequent re-enactment raises serious questions about the government’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles.
The Scope of the Nullified Provisions
The Constitutional Court’s ruling specifically invalidated sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act, as well as section 162 of the Penal Code Act relating to criminal libel. The remaining provisions of the Computer Misuse Act remain in effect. The core issue, however, lies with the Computer Misuse Amendment Act, 2022, which was entirely nullified due to the lack of quorum during its passage. This procedural flaw casts a shadow over the entire amendment, rendering it legally invalid from its inception.
The debate now centers on whether Parliament will apply this opportunity to address the substantive concerns raised by critics of the Computer Misuse Act, or simply attempt to re-enact the invalidated provisions with minimal changes. Legal experts warn that a superficial revision is unlikely to withstand further constitutional scrutiny, potentially leading to a protracted legal battle and continued erosion of fundamental freedoms. The principle of retrospectivity – whether the court’s decision applies to past convictions – remains a key point of contention, with advocates arguing that individuals convicted under unconstitutional laws are entitled to legal remedies, including release and the reversal of their convictions.
The Attorney General’s office has not yet issued a detailed response to the criticisms leveled against its guidance. The next crucial step will be the re-tabling of the Computer Misuse Act in Parliament, where lawmakers will face the challenge of crafting legislation that respects both the principles of free expression and the rule of law. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of digital rights and constitutional freedoms in Uganda.
This is a developing story. Readers seeking further information on constitutional rights and legal remedies in Uganda are encouraged to consult with legal professionals or organizations such as the Uganda Law Society.
