A critical analysis of the impact of the computer misuse Amendment Act, 2022 on the freedom of expression in Uganda

Abstract

Previous research has sharply criticized the Computer Misuse Act, 2011 (CMA), thereby making it appear as if it was enacted to suppress enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. With the aim of establishing whether there was another side to this law, this study sought to analyze its impact on Ugandans’ enjoyment of this right. The objectives of the study were thus to (a) Examine the extent to which the CMAA had achieved its purpose of serving as a basis for protecting the right to freedom of expression and prosecuting alleged abusers of the right to freedom of expression; (b) Establish the practical challenges faced in using this law to prosecute these abusers (c) Propose remedies to these challenges. The study was designed as an exploratory case study involving a largely qualitative and quantitative content analysis of documented data. Data was collected using document review of relevant legal reports and instruments. The key findings of the study indicate that the CMAA had achieved its purpose of serving as a basis for prosecuting abusers of their right to freedom of expression largely, which, however, was contrary to the Constitution of Uganda and some international conventions on human rights such as UDHR and ICCPR. The challenges faced in prosecution based on the CMAA included the questionable constitutionality of this law; vagueness of its Section 26A. The proposed remedies to these challenges included: redefining Section 26A to remove ambiguity. From the above findings, the study concluded by underscoring the need to address the weaknesses and challenges facing the use of the CMAA to prosecute alleged abusers of their freedom of expression through internet-powered communication devices such as telephones, laptops, personal computers and others that facilitate cyber communication. Based on this conclusion, the study recommended to the Parliament of Uganda to amend and to redefine its Section 26A to remove vagueness.