A man using a smartphone recently. Critics say policing online presence is a move to legitimise suppression and repression of alternative voices as the electoral processes heat up. PHOTO/FILE
As the clock ticks towards the 2026 General Election, government has set in motion steps to police online spaces for contents it may deem as harmful to the public. Already, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) says plans are in advanced stage to import equipment and technology it will use to monitor social media platforms.
UCC, the media regulator, says it plans to acquire advanced digital monitoring technologies to filter harmful content online. While the specifics of the equipment to be procured have not been made public, Mr Ibrahim Bbosa, the UCC spokesperson says the systems are expected to include AI-powered tools that can identify hate speech, incitement, and misinformation, along with real-time monitoring dashboards to oversee high-traffic social media channels.
“Additionally, geo-targeting capabilities will help trace the origins of certain content, particularly if it is disseminated from outside Uganda. Sentiment and trend analysis tools will detect fluctuations in digital tension or online unrest.
UCC’s goal is to develop precise tools that safeguard users while maintaining access,” Mr Bbosa told this publication at the weekend. Dr Chris Baryomonsi, the minister of ICT and National Guidance, told journalists at the government-owned Uganda Media Centre last week that government was moving to regulate the social media spaces and check contents that promote hate and disunity in the country.
Protection or suppression?
But critics say this is a clear move to legitimise suppression and repression of alternative voices as the electoral processes heat up. Nevertheless, Mr Bbosa said the government is not planning to introduce new legislations to curb online content, but using the current set of laws which make provisions for policing of the online content.
“Uganda already has a legal and regulatory framework in place to guide the use of social media platforms—including TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and others. The Computer Misuse Act, first enacted in 2011, and updated in 2022, is the cornerstone of this framework. It was designed to prevent cybercrimes, protect citizens from online abuse, and ensure digital platforms are used responsibly,” he said.
He said Uganda’s legal framework doesn’t just acknowledge the challenges of social media, but it actively addresses them.
Mr Bbosa said many people use social media platforms with false or disguised identity to cause harm to others and said the law will now follow them up, including with thorough prosecution. Section 26D(1) of the Computer Misuse Act specifically deals with the misuse of Social Media with False or Disguised Identity.
UCC says this provision addresses the misuse of social media through the use of false or disguised identities, specifically targeting anonymous or fake accounts that disseminate illegal or harmful information. “It states that any individual who utilizes social media to publish, distribute, or share information prohibited by Ugandan law under a false identity commits an offence.” Mr Bbosa says the provision holds individuals criminally liable if they create fake profiles to incite violence, share pornographic material, or spread harmful propaganda.
“The section is particularly relevant during politically-charged times, when disguised identities are frequently employed to manipulate public opinion or provoke unrest,” he said.
He said Uganda’s social media landscape is not venturing into unfamiliar territory; instead, it continues to function within a developing yet already-established legal framework and that the impending changes are not indicative of a new crackdown but rather a more focused scrutiny of our online interactions, especially during a politically sensitive period.
“As digital technologies increasingly play a crucial role in shaping public discourse, the key principle remains the balance between freedom and responsibility. In light of the established laws and the current technological capabilities, albeit limited, there is a clear path forward for effectively addressing abuses within the social media landscape,” he said.
“By leveraging existing legal frameworks, such as the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection and Privacy Act, UCC will support the identification of harmful content and users, enabling swift action.
As a result, abusers can be apprehended and prosecuted in accordance with the law, ensuring accountability and reinforcing the message that misuse of social media will not be tolerated,” he added.
Tough times for groups
Mr Bbosa said it will no longer be business as usual for managers of social media platforms on behalf of organisations, government entities and businesses. Section 26D (2) of the Computer Misuse Act addresses organisational social media liability by holding account managers personally responsible for the content shared on their platforms. He said with this provision in place, administrators of social media platforms must tread carefully or else be held personally liable for posting content which is deemed harmful on organisational platforms.
“The person who manages the social media account of the organisation shall be held personally liable for the commission of the offence. Consequently, if a business, NGO, or government agency disseminates illegal or defamatory material through its official social media accounts, the individual overseeing the account—typically the communications officer—can face prosecution,” the clause states. Mr Bbosa said this provision aims to instill genuine accountability in digital communication practices, which the commission will enforce.
Section 25 criminalises the deliberate use of social media or electronic communication to disturb another person’s peace. It specifically addresses the act of willfully and repeatedly using such communication methods to infringe upon the peace, quiet, or privacy rights of individuals without any legitimate purpose for communication.
Legal nets
UCC says this section encompasses behaviours like trolling, online bullying, and harassment campaigns, indicating that even the continuous sending of abusive messages, comments, or posts—regardless of whether a conversation takes place—can be considered an offence.
Other provisions that UCC said it will invoke to punish the offenders include Section 24 that covers obscene messages, threats of harm, or using someone’s device to harass others, Section 25 targeting people who repeatedly use online platforms to intimidate or scare others and Section 26 on hate speech, which makes it a crime to post or share content that ridicules, degrades, or incites hostility against someone based on tribe, religion, ethnicity, or gender.
Section 27 criminalises sending or sharing information without consent unless it serves the public interest, while Section 28 outlaws sending false content meant to harm another person’s image, business, or credibility. “These sections form a broad and firm legal net for tackling online abuse, hate speech, misinformation, and digital manipulation,” Mr Bbosa said.
He said Uganda’s legal framework is equipped with strong mechanisms to regulate and manage the digital landscape. Mr Bbosa said the existing laws criminalise the creation of fake accounts that disseminate harmful content and hold account managers personally accountable. They also impose penalties for hate speech, harassment, and the spread of misinformation while safeguarding citizens’ personal data from misuse. “This comprehensive regulatory foundation not only protects digital rights but also aims to prevent online harm, which is especially significant as the country approaches the election season,” he said.
Rights defenders respond
However, the move by the government through UCC to police the social media has generated sharp reactions from human rights defenders who say it is a ploy to curtail dissenting voices ahead of the anticipated hotly contested 2026 elections. Mr Robert Sempala, the executive director of Human Rights Network for Journalists, told this publication that while such a move would be welcome in combating negativity, the recent experiences show that the worst is yet to come if the government moves to control the online spaces.
“You know, for a fact, progressive regulation is very welcome in the midst of so much disinformation and misinformation, which is not productive to anyone in Uganda or elsewhere. We hope that the government is tending towards that direction. But going by the past experiences, the government has built so much on control and suffocation rather than stimulation, the consumption or progressive regulation to grow the industry,” he said.
Mr Sempala expressed fear that the run up to 2026 is likely to present a very tough time for the media as the government moves to close the space for voices that disagree with the ruling party’s perspectives. Uganda has in the past witnessed the narrowing of space for opposition political parties, which in some cases involved the switching off radio signals during talk shows or completely blocking them from accessing the radio stations. Mr Sempala said he could not rule out that this will happen again ahead of the 2026 elections.
“The fact that it is targeting the 2026 elections, speaks of how much the media has always been stifled during the electoral processes, how the media is intimidated, how it operates under a lot of self-censorship, occasioned by the immense fear,” he said.
“We cannot rule out cases of closing out spaces that can be used for dissenting views to trickle through their opinions and gainful engagement with the electoral processes. The Opposition has highly relied on social media to propagate a lot of their information. So any move to manage that space raises a lot of suspicion to the effect that it’s going to be closed out for dissenting views and therefore is going to cripple freedom of expression and access to information,” Mr Sempala said.
Mr Anthony Masake, the executive director of Chapter Four, said the amendment of the Computer Misuse Act in 2022 introduced a range of vague and regressive law. He said working in concert with partners, Chapter Four Uganda petitioned the Constitutional Court to challenge the entire amendment.
“Conferencing of that petition has been concluded and the file has been forwarded to the panel for hearing. We look forward to our day in court to demonstrate how the sections are an unjustifiable infringement on digital freedoms and therefore unconstitutional,” he said.
Mr Masake wondered why a progressive law would target and provide for express personal liability for communication officers of organisations for social media posts on organisation accounts. “If an organisation publishes content that crosses the line of justifiable limitations, the law should engage the entity, unless the corporate veil is pierced in accordance with the law,” he said. Mr Masake said the offensive communication under Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act, was repealed on January 10, 2023, by the Constitutional Court in the case of Andrew Karamagi and Robert Shaka versus Attorney General.
“In agreeing with us, the Court held that the section provided for an unjustifiable restriction on the freedom of speech in a free and democratic society as guaranteed under Article 29(1) of the Constitution because of being vague, overly broad and ambiguous, the section failed to specify what conduct constitutes offensive communication. The Parliament of Uganda repealed the section from the Act to align with the decision of the court. It is therefore no longer law and no one should be arrested or prosecuted under this offence,” he said.
He said some of the other offences introduced in the amendment of the Computer Misuse Act in 2022 either cross the line of justifiable limitations or are void for vagueness. For example, he said in an attempt to criminalise unsolicited information, the law crosses the line of justifiable limitations and exposes people who initiate conversations or share information to criminal liability. “In an attempt to criminalise hate speech, the law exceeds acts that constitute hate speech by including content that ridicules or degrades.
”While it is permissible under the law to carry out Internet censorship to block access to pornographic content on sites that can be accessed by children or to block hate speech against communities, selective censorship in incidents of misinformation, false information, dissent, annoying content, or other protected expression cannot be justified,” Mr Masake said.
He said instead of cracking the whip on the dissenting voices to silence then, the government should intensify digital awareness and sharing of more information to counter what is false or inaccurate. “Regulation of the internet and online communications is necessary. However, it is important that any restrictions on digital freedoms are necessary, justifiable and proportionate in a free society. Vague, overly broad, ambiguous and regressive laws will be challenged for being unconstitutional,” he said.
Balancing regulation with Freedoms
But Mr Bbosa countered that balancing the need for regulation with the preservation of individual freedoms during elections is a critical concern. Uganda’s legal framework addresses this by imposing safeguards that penalise only clearly defined types of harmful speech, ensuring that any enforcement actions follow due process and are subject to judicial oversight. “The framework also respects the rights under Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and access to information, as long as these rights do not violate the rights or safety of others. UCC emphasises that regulation is not intended to stifle expression but to promote responsible digital citizenship, particularly in maintaining a safe digital environment during crucial periods like elections,” he said.
Growing trend
Catalysts
Uganda has in the past witnessed the narrowing of space for opposition political parties, which in some cases involved the switching off radio signals during talk shows or completely blocking them from accessing the radio stations.
What law says
Provisions
Section 26D (2) of the Computer Misuse Act addresses organisational social media liability by holding account managers personally responsible for the content shared on their platforms. Section 25 criminalises the deliberate use of social media or electronic communication to disturb another person’s peace. It specifically addresses the act of wilfully and repeatedly using such communication methods to infringe upon the peace, quiet, or privacy rights of individuals without any legitimate purpose for communication.
Concerns.
While it is permissible under the law to carry out Internet censorship to block access to pornographic content on sites that can be accessed by children or to block hate speech against communities, selective censorship in incidents of misinformation, false information, dissent, annoying content, or other protected expression cannot be justified,” – Anthony Masake, executive director of Chapter Four
Assurance.
The framework respects the rights under Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and access to information... UCC emphasises that regulation is not intended to stifle expression but to promote responsible digital citizenship, particularly in maintaining a safe digital environment during crucial periods like elections,” – Ibrahim Bbosa, UCC spokesperson.
