Constitutional Court Nullifies Computer Misuse Act Provisions, Criminal Libel Law
Court declares sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 of Computer Misuse Act and Penal Code Section 162 unconstitutional
KAMPALA, Uganda – In a landmark judgment delivered on March 17, 2026, the Constitutional Court has declared key provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022 null and void, while also striking down the criminal libel law under Section 162 of the Penal Code Act.
The court ruled that Parliament failed to follow proper procedure when enacting the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill, 2022, violating Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution as well as Rule 24(3) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
Proceedings Must Be Terminated
Following the ruling, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka has issued a directive to all government agencies, including the Inspector General of Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Criminal Investigations Directorate, advising that:
· All criminal proceedings emanating from the impugned provisions should be terminated immediately
· No further arrests shall be made based on the nullified provisions
· All accused persons facing charges under these provisions should be freed
The court issued a permanent injunction restraining all government agencies, authorities, and officials from enforcing the affected sections.
Provisions Declared Null and Void
The following sections of the Computer Misuse Act, 2023 Edition have been struck down:
· Section 11 – Unauthorised access, interception, and sharing of information
· Section 23 – Unauthorised sharing of information about children
· Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 – Various computer misuse offences
Additionally, Section 162 of the Penal Code Act (criminal libel) was declared null and void.
Why the Laws Were Struck Down
The court found multiple constitutional violations:
- Procedural Irregularity: Parliament passed the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill without complying with Rule 24(3) of its Rules of Procedure, rendering the entire enactment process inconsistent with Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution.
- Vague and Ambiguous Definition: The definition of libel under Section 163 of the Penal Code Act was found to be “vague and ambiguous,” contravening Article 19(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
- Violation of African Charter: Section 162 of the Penal Code Act was held to contravene Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, failing to meet the legal standard required under Article 9(2) of the Charter.
- Inconsistency with Uganda’s International Obligations: The criminal libel law was found inconsistent with Objective XXVIII(i)(b) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.
What Remains in Effect
The Attorney General clarified that apart from the provisions declared null and void, the remaining provisions in both the Computer Misuse Act and the Penal Code Act remain enforceable under the law.
The court ordered the government to pay 30 percent of the costs of the petitioners’ advocates.
Petitioners
The consolidated petitions included:
· Constitutional Petition No. 34 of 2022 – Alternative Digital Limited and Others vs. Attorney General
· Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2022 – Human Rights Network For Journalists Uganda and Others vs. Attorney General
· Constitutional Petition No. 42 of 2022 – Uganda Law Society vs. Attorney General
Government Response
The Attorney General’s office has advised against appealing the decision, recommending instead that the law be sent back to Parliament for proper enactment.
“No appeal should be preferred in these consolidated petitions, but rather the law should be sent back to Parliament for proper enactment,” the Attorney General’s communication stated.
Important Clarification
The court’s decision does not affect persons already convicted on charges arising from these provisions who are serving sentences. Such individuals remain unaffected by the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
About The Author
