Minister, Attorney General at odds over 'music tax' on new phones, laptops

KAMPALA - Gender and culture state minister Peace Regis Mutuuzo has backed a proposal by a section of musicians led by Mawokota North MP Hillary Kiyaga aka Dr Hilderman seeking to impose a levy on digital transferable gadgets.

Digital transferable gadgets refer to devices capable of storing, copying or transferring digital content, such as phones, laptops, tablets, flash disks, external hard drives and memory cards.

She echoed this on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, during an interface with the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, chaired by Bukhooli North MP Stephen Bakka Mugabi (NRM), which is currently scrutinising the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill 2025.

Private copying levy

The surcharge known as the private copying levy was omitted from the draft Bill before the House committee, ostensibly over concerns raised by Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka.

Kiwanuka, while appearing before the same committee, said Cabinet had observed that it would drive up gadget prices. Which alone might undermine the Government’s Internet expansion agenda.

“We discussed the issue of the levy, and we came to one conclusion. A phone, USB and all these gadgets are not used only for copyright. I could use my phone for a whole year without playing music on it. But this tool is a universal tool being used by everyone. Now this levy will have the effect of increasing the cost of this product,” Kiwanuka argued.

However, while speaking on August 12, Mutuuzo distanced herself from the talk that they had agreed at Cabinet level.

“It is something we have not agreed on as Government. While the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs feels that it will discourage, they are only looking at the academic area and even the argument of stating that somebody is not interested in listening to Music, but if the other person on the other side of the call registered a caller back tune and you suddenly call or pick his phone call, won't you listen to the music?” she posed.

“Even if you are not interested, you have listened to the music and, therefore, you have taken in the content. And I don’t think there are gadgets where we don’t read some people's scripts; they are not common. So, instead of addressing the character, let us address the concern,” Mutuuzo added.

She argued that the charge was a crucial mechanism to compensate rights holders for the widespread and unmonitored copyright for their works on personal devices.

“Each gadget pays a levy, that’s what we propose, once in its lifetime, at the time of import or manufacture. The levy applies to the capacity of the gadget to copy, store or share protected content. And not the character of the person that will use it,”

“We recommend that we insert a new provision to establish a private copy renumeration system. This system will apply a modest levy on devices and media used for reproduction, such as smartphones, tablets and hard drives at the time of their import or manufacture. The fee will be based on the storage capacity of the device,” Mutuuzo suggested.

The aforementioned levy shall be paid once in the lifetime of a gadget.  According to her, this will create a sustainable funding stream for the creative sector to ensure that the artistes are fairly compensated for private copying that is difficult to track and regulate on an individual basis.

Adding that it is a proven model that has existed in countries such as Kenya, Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania, Botswana and Nigeria.

“The revenue collected would be distributed to the artistes and rights holders. A portion of the revenue will be used to set up a cultural fund needed to support emerging artistes,” she explained.

Whereas the initial proposal was to support emerging artistes through grants, Mutuuzo told MPs they now believe the focus should be on establishing studios and cultural centres.

Stakeholders speak out

The move has also attracted the backing of specialists in the creative space, such as Charles Batambuze, the executive director of Uganda Reproduction Rights Organisation (URRO), who last week told MPs that this year, Tanzania plans to distribute its first royalties from the same.

“Reality of life for us as creatives is that when you create a piece of work, for instance, a comedy skit and share it with one person. By the time you know it the entire market that would have paid you for this work has already watched the skit for free. So, the question is who pays the creator and what benefit does the creator gain from such use?” Batambuze posed.

“I also have this example of the late Maj. (rtd) John Kazoora. When he passed on, his book became very popular, and there are about 15 million handsets. We can say 15 million digital phone handsets received his book for free. How will his estate benefit from such exploitation? Because none of those people will go to the book shop to buy that book,” he further inquired.  

All said and done, Sarah Kyazze Namulondo, a member of the legendary Afrigo Band, which will be celebrating 50 years mid this month, opined that the creative economy is still crawling because of the absence of a much more pragmatic law.

“I know for a fact that things like the printers, photocopiers, schools use one book and print two hundred or a thousand copies for their students. The writers cannot benefit when they only sell one book, when they could have sold a thousand. That is theft and it is being done in Government Organisations and schools because there is no law to say we need make sure that the creator earns something,” Namulondo pointed out.

“We need to remove that envy against creators because it is one of the things standing in the way of creating laws that will support creative people,” she summed. 

Alternative revenue streams

However, Uganda being a country where citizens often have to be pushed like mules to accept policies, Counsel Norman Mbabazi from Busingye and Company Advocates argues that if the copying levy is too hard a bargain, it would be helpful for the law to clearly specify who is responsible for paying the communication to the public license.

In the principal law, “communication to the public” is defined as the operation by which sounds or images or both sounds and images are transmitted to the public, whether through broadcast, performance or other means. The provision excluded a family setting or function.

“We’re talking about people who own hotels, get a single transmission from dstv and then re-transmit within the various rooms that they have. Then they are paying a single subscription, but they have 100 rooms, which is 100 guests. Imagine there was no dstv, I want to believe those hotels would be shunned and the reason why people are going there is because of the content we create,” he added.

Big tech

Mbabazi said this revenue can be raised from public transport (commonly known as Kamunye), hotels, bars, radio stations, and TV stations. He added that while some video streaming apps like TikTok are not based in Uganda, the costs could be passed on to telecom companies as well.

“The other day, UCC published and said that Ugandans spend shillings 55 billion daily on TikTok. TikTok alone raises shillings 22 trillion annually from data purchases. But what is without content? We are suggesting that within the law we need to find a way to put these so-called big telecoms at a point where they contribute towards content creation as well as a proper payment towards creators. We are not going to find TikTok here,” he cited.

“If you calculate how much money Ugandans spend on TikTok, WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, it is colossal, it comes to about shillings 38 trillion. If I am not mistaken, that is a very big portion of our national budget. So, these guys are enjoying all this money and are not bothered about the content creators,” Mbabazi stated.

Taking this into account, he argued that if telecom companies were serious, they would invest significantly in content creators to boost internet users from 14.2 million upwards as a win-win solution.