Annulment of offensive law, lesson to police, Parliament

Offensive communication is no longer a crime. It should never have been in the first place but for some inexplicable business by the legislative arm of the government. 

The Constitutional Court on Tuesday annulled Section 25 of the controversial Computer Misuse Act in a unanimous judgment that effectively renders any ongoing trial of citizens for the alleged crime of offensive communication as null and void. It is important that the Police respect and abide by the decision of the Constitutional Court. The manner in which this controversial law was haphazardly slapped on Ugandans and enforced by the State through the security apparatus would make one hesitate to celebrate too soon. But the court decision is a major victory for free speech nonetheless.

In the past, security agencies – including the Police and Military – have abused the decisions of courts in ways that left the Temple of Justice naked. But Ugandans cannot afford to keep regressing in observance of the rule of law. It is important for the citizens and the Constitution that security agencies respect the decision of the court.

Pronouncing itself, the Constitutional Court noted that any prosecution of persons for the content of their communication is a violation of what falls within the guarantee of freedom of expression in a democratic society. This must henceforth be non-negotiable and security organs must abide by the ruling so as not to let the people’s confidence in the rule of law deteriorate any further.

For Parliament, the impugned law is not just a slap in the face but a wakeup call. That this was a controversial law that had no place in a State that claims to respect the freedom of expression, which, according to the European Court of Human Rights, includes saying things that offend, shock or disturb the peace of the State or any sector of the population.

Parliament pushed ahead with the controversial law fully aware that it contravened sections of the 1996 Constitution of Uganda (as amended). Changing the ideals of freedom of expression was an affront on the supreme law of the land that guides the work of Parliament and one that Parliament is mandated to protect.

Significantly, there are still other courts, including the East African Court of Justice, yet to pronounce themselves on similar petitions against this controversial law. The Constitutional Court decision has already set the ball running.

Parliament needs to invest its resources in making laws that promote the rule of law and protect the Constitution of the republic. Bills must be better scrutinised and debated to exhaust all their implications and place in the Constitution unlike what the country witnessed in this the passing of the Computer Misuse Act.

The Constitutional Court decision is a strong reminder to Parliament to put the Constitution above any other interests of individuals when making laws of the land.