The Constitutional Court sitting in Kampala has nullified the Computer Misuse Act, a ruling that overturns one of Uganda’s most controversial digital laws.
It should be remembered that In 2022, the Uganda Law Society, together with 26 other organizations and individuals, through their lawyers who includede George Musisi and Eron Kiiza petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking declarations that all provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 were inconsistent with several provisions of the Constitution.
![How Jinja Policeman Won 280 Millions Last Night From Fixed Matches [PROOF]](https://www.informer.co.ug/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/wins-millions-from-sports-betting-300x133.jpg)
The petitioners also sought orders for the provisions to be struck out as null and void and they argued that the passage of the Amendment violated principles enshrined in the Preamble and undermined aspects of participatory democracy guaranteed under the Constitution and specifically, they contended that the clause on misuse of social media had been introduced without public consultation.
The law, which was tabled by Kampala Central Member of Parliament Muhammad Nsereko, was passed by Parliament in September 2022 and later assented to by President Yoweri Museveni wnd tt sought to strengthen provisions on unauthorized access to information and regulate online conduct.
Among its key provisions, the Act prohibited unauthorized access to data, restricted the sharing of information related to children without parental consent, and criminalized the dissemination of hate speech, as well as false, malicious or unsolicited information. It also barred individuals convicted under the law from holding public office for up to 10 years.
However, in its ruling, the Constitutional Court found that Parliament passed the law in contravention of the Constitution, rendering it null and void and the decision marks a significant moment for digital rights and freedom of expression in Uganda, effectively striking down provisions that had drawn widespread public debate and criticism.
While delivering the judgment, Justice Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka concurred with her colleague Justice Irene Mulyagonja, and ruled that Parliament failed to comply with its own Rules of Procedure when passing the amendment.
Specifically, the court held that the enactment violated Rule 24(3) of Parliament’s procedures under Article 94 of the Constitution, rendering the law null and void.
