The Computer Misuse Act’s Section 24, which criminalizes online harassment, has been upheld by the constitutional court.
The constitutional court ruled unanimously that it cannot condone harassing behaviour against anyone, whether it occurs offline or online and regardless of whether the target is a private or public person. The judgement was written by Justice Irene Mulyagonja.
Cyberbullying, to put it simply, is harassment of a person or a group of people that takes place online. This is made clear in the impugned provision’s paragraph 2 (c), which states that it is an infraction to intentionally permit the use of an electronic communications device for any of the reasons listed in section 24 of the Act. It would be tragic if this court determined that persistently harassing someone, whether online or off, is a protected form of expression. I thus conclude that Article 28(12) of the Constitution is not violated by section 24(2)(a) of the Computer Misuse Act. The judgement states in part, “It does not violate the concept of legality established by the Constitution because it provides sufficient explanation of what is banned.
Following a petition filed by the Uganda Law Society in 2017 questioning the legitimacy of sections 24 and 25 of the Computer Misuse Act, Mulyagonja’s judgement was made.
The stated portions, they claimed, violated articles 28, 29, and 43 of the constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and expression and outline the conditions under which it may be restricted.
Additionally, the petition was combined with one filed by Gwogyolonga Swaib Nsamba, Unwanted Witness Uganda, and the Human Rights Enforcement Fund, which questioned the validity of Section 179 of the Criminal Code Act, which defines criminal libel.
According to Mulyagonja’s decision, the same court has previously adequately addressed both Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act and Section 179 of the Criminal Code, which deals with criminal libel.
In Andrew Karamagi and Robert Shaka v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 005 of 2016), this court evaluated whether section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act, 2011 is in conflict with and in violation of Article 29 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The petitioners therein alleged that the contested provision is an evil form of censorship that impedes the free exchange of ideas and opinions necessary to support the collective life of the populace in the digital age; it is ambiguous and overbroad; and there is no proof that the government could not accomplish the contested provision’s goals with less extreme measures. The finding reached in the instance of Andrew Karamagi (supra) means that this court does not need to provide a new interpretation of Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act in light of Articles 29 (1) (a), 28 (12), and 43 (2) (c) of the Constitution.
In the issue of criminal libel, she upheld the court’s decision in the Joachim Buwembo and others case, which stated that the media has a responsibility to refrain from publishing any stories that are damaging to any person’s reputation or character.
The judge therefore ruled that; “The limitations imposed by section 179 of the Criminal Code Act should not prevent Ugandans from exercising their right to freedom of expression. If Section 179 were to be declared illegal, this would suggest that the right to free expression is unrestricted, which would be a violation of Article 43 of the Constitution.” Cheborion Barishaki, Stephen Musota, Muzamiru Kibeedi, and Monica Mugenyi made up the other members of the judging panel.