Those who wish UCC well would do well to critique its over-reach

It is an unspoken rule that anyone in charge of a radio or a television station is well advised not to criticise the Uganda Communications Commission, which regulates the industry. Your columnist happens to be in charge of the editorial operations of not one, but two radios, two television stations, two newspapers and at least a dozen websites and social media operations and is mindful of this industry practice. But your columnist also happens to have inalienable rights, wishes the Commission well, and is an advocate ofresponsible and fair journalism. It is thus important that we show that these positions are not mutually exclusive. 
UCC recently put out a public notice calling for the registration of all websites and social media channels that broadcast to the public. This is well within the regulator’s rights, and while many found the timing – ahead of the election campaign season – suspect, there are at least two clear problems with the proposal.
The first is technical: Keeping an eye on radio and television stations, which need to have physical infrastructure like masts and studios, or newspapers that need to have large, immovable printing presses, is relatively easy; not so for websites or social media platforms whose servers are often half a world away, or literally in the cloud. At best it is a bureaucratic game of whack-a-mole. But the second problem, the legal one, is more important. UCC had previously issued similar directives in 2019, prompting Unwanted Witness, a civil society group that advocates digital rights and online freedoms, to file a constitutional petition in objection. 
Attempting to re-issue directives that are under challenge in court can be interpreted as either not respecting the Judiciary or trying to defeat justice. Neither is desirable.
Unfortunately, this practice is not new: After the courts declared unconstitutional colonial-era laws that the police had been using to stifle freedom of assembly and political association, the Executive merely reintroduced the same laws as new legislation and passed them through a pliant and half-asleep Parliament. That the architect of the Public Order Management Act would later become one of its victims when he fell out of favour and ran for president is funny, but nevertheless, sad and scant consolation.
The UCC Act, which established the Commission, provides for a tribunal to listen to complaints and act as an arbiter. If Citizen A believes Website B is inciting violence and reports to UCC, the Commission should pass the matter onto this tribunal to hear impartially. The failure to set up this tribunal almost a decade later, means that the UCC often finds itself acting as the complainant, prosecutor, prosecution witness, judge, court orderly and executioner.
In the past, UCC has gotten away with this abuse of law and procedure through a culture of bullying and thinly veiled threats, paired with moral and institutional cowardice on the part of the regulated. This punishes honest mistakes unfairly and drives the real miscreants underground.
A vibrant and responsible media is a key ingredient in building just and accountable societies. Self-respecting journalists and editors are the first line of defence against sensational or false news because they know that credibility is their first, and last, line of defence. Of course, not all journalists are self-respecting and there should be regulation to keep in line those who, for instance, damage reputations willy-nilly or weaponise the tools of their trade.
But this regulation to keep media, including citizen journalists, in check, should not be allowed to creep into control. Thankfully for us, the Supreme Court weighed in on this matter in 2004 when it struck down the law against publication of false news.
In his lead judgment, Justice Joseph Mulenga (RIP) pointed out that the laws guaranteeing freedom of expression are primarily there to protect not only praise-singers, but people who say what the majority, or those in power, may not want to hear.   
He also noted that while the Constitution imposes limits to free speech, those limits must be “demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society”. Our new friends now in charge at UCC might want to introspect and redefine themselves as an institution that defends, rather than stifles freedoms, and one that regulates, rather than controls. Those of us who wish the UCC well should call it out on its transgressions. Pushing back and encouraging the institution to follow the law is a good start. We can’t have the rule of law if institutions that enforce the rules do not follow the law. 

Mr Kalinaki is a journalist and  poor man’s freedom fighter. 
[email protected] 
@Kalinaki