The Constitutional Court of Uganda has nullified the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 after finding that it was enacted in violation of constitutional and parliamentary procedures, rendering the contested provisions null and void.

The Court held that the Parliament of Uganda passed the law without complying with mandatory procedural requirements governing legislative business. In its ruling, the Court found that the failure to verify quorum before voting on the bill made the entire process unconstitutional.

According to the judgment, Parliament passed the Computer Misuse Bill on September 8, 2022 without confirming that the required number of legislators was present at the time of voting. The Court determined that this omission contravened constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules that regulate how laws are enacted.

As a result, the Court declared several key provisions introduced under the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 unconstitutional. These include Section 11, which had criminalized unauthorized access, interception of data, or recording of another person’s communication, as well as Section 23, which restricted the sharing or transmission of information relating to a child without authorization.

The ruling also affected Section 26, which had criminalized sharing information likely to ridicule, degrade, or demean a person or promote hostility based on tribe, religion, or gender. Section 27, which prohibited sending or sharing unsolicited information except in the public interest, and Section 28, which addressed the sharing of malicious information about another person, were also struck down.

In addition, the Court nullified Section 29, which had prohibited the misuse of social media through the use of disguised or false identities when sharing restricted content. These provisions had formed part of broader efforts to regulate online communication and digital conduct.

In the same ruling, the Court declared Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act unconstitutional, finding that the offence of criminal libel was vague and lacked sufficient legal clarity.

The judgment reinforces the principle that legislation must be enacted in full compliance with constitutional procedures and underscores the importance of legal certainty in laws affecting digital expression. The ruling is expected to influence ongoing discussions on online regulation, freedom of expression, and constitutional governance in Uganda.