Uganda’s Constitutional Court has delivered a far-reaching judgment on the controversial Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, faulting Parliament for violating mandatory constitutional procedures in passing the law and raising alarm over its impact on fundamental freedoms.
In a consolidated ruling on three petitions, a panel of five justices led by Justice Irene Mulyagonja found that Parliament failed to comply with quorum requirements during the passage of the law, rendering the process unconstitutional.
The petitions were jointly filed by civil society actors, journalists and the Uganda Law Society, who challenged both the substance of the amendments and the manner in which they were enacted.
At the heart of the ruling was whether Parliament had the legally required number of Members present when the law was passed.
The court stressed that quorum is a constitutional safeguard, not a mere procedural formality.
“The quorum of Parliament shall be one third of all Members of Parliament entitled to vote,” the court observed, citing parliamentary rules.
The judges noted that the Speaker is under a duty to confirm quorum before any vote is taken. However, after reviewing the Hansard and official parliamentary records, the court found no evidence that this was done.
“It was not shown anywhere that the Speaker ascertained that the Members present in the House formed the requisite quorum for the vote to be taken,” the judgment reads.
The court dismissed arguments that routine phrases such as “question put and agreed to” could suffice as proof.
In strong language, the justices warned against casual approaches to legislative procedure, stating that quorum must be established through clear and verifiable means.
“This cannot be done by simply looking around it must be achieved by physical counting the procedure was mere guess work,” the court ruled.
The judgment emphasised that legislative records must clearly indicate the number of Members present, how they voted, and whether quorum was met.
The Attorney General had argued that the petitioners failed to prove that quorum was lacking. But the court held that once credible evidence is presented, the burden shifts to the State.
“Once the petitioners produced sufficient evidence, the burden shifted to the respondent to prove that the Speaker followed the procedure,” the judges ruled.
The government, the court said, failed to discharge that burden.
The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 introduced a raft of new offences targeting online conduct, including misuse of social media, sharing unsolicited information, and publication of “malicious” content.
Critics argued that the provisions were vague and open to abuse, potentially criminalising legitimate expression.
According to the petitioners, the law:
“vaguely criminalise[s] and unjustifiably impede[s] the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.”
They further contended that provisions penalising “ridiculing” or “demeaning” content could be used to silence dissent and target journalists, activists and opposition voices.
The court also heard that some of the most contentious provisions were introduced without adequate public consultation, raising concerns about compliance with constitutional principles of participatory governance.
Petitioners argued that Ugandans were denied a meaningful opportunity to contribute to a law that directly affects digital rights and freedoms.
The ruling comes amid growing debate over regulation of digital spaces in Uganda, where authorities have in recent years tightened oversight of online platforms, citing concerns over misinformation and cyber harassment.
However, civil society groups have warned that such laws risk shrinking civic space and undermining democratic freedoms.
The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act was widely viewed as part of this broader push, particularly for its focus on social media use and online speech.
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces the need for strict adherence to constitutional procedures in lawmaking, especially on contentious legislation.
It also reopens debate on how Uganda balances regulation of the digital space with protection of fundamental rights.
In a ruling likely to shape future legislative conduct, the Constitutional Court made it clear that both the process and content of laws must meet constitutional standards.
Laws, the court underscored, must not only pursue legitimate objectives but must also be enacted through lawful, transparent and accountable procedures.
The decision marks a significant moment for constitutionalism and digital rights in Uganda, with potential ripple effects across the country’s legal and political landscape.
