COMPUTER | MISUSE | ACT 

KAMPALA - On September 8 this year, Parliament passed the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill 2022, even though the majority of the stakeholders were outrightly against it.

Members of Parliament’s ICT and national guidance committee interfaced with 17 stakeholders. At least 14 stakeholders rejected the Bill and advised Parliament to withdraw it. 

The expert views were from the ICT and national guidance ministry, Uganda Law Society; National Information Technology Authority (NITA), journalist associations and civil society.

. The Bill now awaits President Yoweri Museveni’s assent for it to become law.

“The way the law is right now, any Ugandan can fall victim.

Users of social media like TikTok are restricted on what they post by the new law. (All Photos by Ronnie Kijjambu)

“The committee seems to have continued to push ahead with the amendment subject to a few changes, which disturbs us because it is a dangerous precedent,” outgoing Uganda Law Society president Phoena Wall Nabasa observed. 

Stakeholders pointed out that there were already existing laws on what the amendment was trying to accomplish and a bad law to suppress digital rights including free expression and access to information. 

The Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among, was pleased to preside over and pass the Bill.

“Those people who think they should play around with people’s names must answer. We are here to legislate, we make the laws, for them they are there to write, we shall legislate and the laws will get them,” she said. 

The independent member’s Bill, which was moved by Kampala Central MP (Independent) and lawyer Mohammed Nsereko, sought to amend the Computer Misuse Act of 2011.

The Bill premise was to protect the right to privacy, prohibit unlawful access to data and prohibit the sending or sharing of information that promotes hate speech among others, which offences are addressed in the Children Act plus Data protection and privacy Act 2019, among other laws.

The experts called for facilitation of the existing computer laws and review of the principal Act. Experts instead wanted sections Section 24 and 25 of the Computer Misuse Act of 2011 which create offences of cyber harassment and offensive communication to be amended. ULS and civil society challenged the laws in the Constitutional Court because the laws were not defined. 

Gagging citizens 

Speaking about the passed law, Allan Sempala Kigozi, the head of legal at Unwanted Witness Uganda, said: “They should have clearly defined the terms such as hate speech and demeaning means.” 

Critics of the Computer Misuse amendment Bill 2022 say the bill goes against the Constitutional provision of free speech and expression.

He revisited the presentations where stakeholders complained about the ambiguous, vague and unclear offences of offensive communication in the original Act. 

“I am not against any punitive measures of any Act. My problem is penalizing freedom of speech. When you criminalise speech and expression, the community goes mute. And the moment they go mute, you don’t know what could happen. The past regimes that suppressed people for expressing themselves, the results were guerilla wars and coups,” Kigozi said. 

He reiterated the call to empower other Acts to serve the purpose of the amendments Parliament has made. “You can criminalise wrong use of personal information because much of what they sought to amend speaks to privacy, yet we have a law that provides for privacy (Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019) but the office has no resources,” he said. 

In her minority report, which she signed alone, Gorreth Namugga, Mawogola South MP (NUP), rejected the Bill. 

“The fundamental rights to access information electronically and to express oneself over computer networks ore utterly risked by this Bill. If passed into low. it will stifle the acquisition of information. The penalties proposed in the bill ore overly harsh and disproportionate when compared to similar offences in other legislations. This bill if passed, it will be a bad low and liable to constitutional petitions upon ascent,” she noted. 

The independent member’s Bill, which was moved by Kampala Central MP (Independent) and lawyer Mohammed Nsereko, sought to amend the Computer Misuse Act of 2011.

According to the new law a person who intentionally accesses or intercepts a program or data without authority or permission to do so commits an offence, and is liable to a fine of sh4.8m or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both upon conviction. 

One found guilty of misuse of social media is will pay sh10m or be imprisoned for five years or both. Under the principal Act, a convict for offensive communication pays sh480,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both. 

“They didn’t have to make the Computer Misuse Act more draconian but should have made the Data protection and privacy Act more effective,” Kigozi said. 

Paulo Ekochu, the chairperson of Media Council of Uganda said the law should not aim at the social media user because that restricts flow of information, which was wrong in a democratic society. 

Ekochu was in Twitter spaces discourse on legal governance of social media, organized by African Center for Media Excellence (ACME) and Uganda Media Sector Working Group.

Ekochu said the Government should aim at making the social media platforms accountable. “Twitter has got policies which they enforce and when they don’t enforce them, their regulators penalize them for that. In Germany, when there is hate speech or sectarian talk on a platform, they are required to remove it within 24 hours or face sanctions from the regulator. 

“Focus should start with the platform where we are having issues. How do we ensure the sphere is safe for all before we look at the individuals who are working in that world. The individuals today can be anonymous and you’ll never know who is talking but the platform is known,” he said. 

Selective prosecution

Many have been arrested and charged with cyber harassment and offensive communication but all the cases have been political in nature. 

Dr. Stella Nyanzi, was arrested for insulting the president in a social media post in 2019, convicted of cyber harassment contrary to section 24 of the Act but acquitted of offensive communications, which is forbidden under section 25.

Many have been arrested and charged with cyber harassment and offensive communication but all the cases have been political in nature. 

Novelist Kakwenza Rukirabashaija was arrested and charged with offensive communication. 

Student Brian Isiko’s conviction of cyber harassment and offensive communication was quashed by the High court. 

Bizonto comedy group members were detained over alleged offensive and sectarian posts. 

Last week (September 9), Tracy Naluboowa, 27, was remanded to Luzira Prison on charges of offensive communication. 

She is being accused of jubilating over the death of former security minster Gen Elly Tumwine and attacking President Yoweri Museveni through posts on social media.

However, a one Kisakyamukama, who allegedly recorded himself stripping naked before a camera cursing Baganda/Buganda and posted it online, is a free man, with no repercussions, even when there was a public outcry for his prosecution. 

Imani Mulungi, a participant in the ACME & UMSWG Twitter Space argued that the intention of the amendments was suspicious because dozens of Ugandans have been victims online, but arrests are selectively about political content. 

She called for strengthening and implementation of existing computer-related laws instead of introducing new ones.

“Can we see increased sensitization of the already existing laws and ensure that the chain of operation is working so that we don’t see victims of crimes like revenge porn, body shaming or image-based violence so that we see if people are listened to and get justice, then people will trust the process and it does not look like a witch-hunt,” she said. 

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo was equally wary of a bad law being used to persecute Ugandans. 

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo was equally wary of a bad law being used to persecute Ugandans. (Credit: Julius Kasirye)

“So, for any public official who feels insulted and therefore we must enact a law; the law as important as it is, is not the silver bullet to every problem. We must be careful in giving an instrument in the hands of such systems because they can become instruments of repression and instruments of targeting a particular set of people,” he said. 

Mulungi said the bills, even when they are seemingly well-intentioned, are now being looked at in a different way. “We continuously see it online where more and more Ugandans are losing trust in the leadership yet a lot of sensitization can be done. This now looks like Nsereko is getting back at trolls,” she said. 

Citing the example of Twitter reporting that it had disabled a network of 418 accounts engaged in coordinated inauthentic activity, Mulungi argued that it was upon the Government to first stop misinformation. 

“For about three years, I was impersonated by a government bot account. So, when you hear people from government offices saying things like misinformation, yet we know that Twitter penalized the Government for using bot accounts for misinformation. Shouldn’t the evaluation then start from the ruling government to ensure there is no misinformation or use of bot accounts. That they lead by example. That way it is going to be a bit easy for people to trust them,” she said. 

Ekochu said the Council, was consulting and reviewing laws regarding communication with the ICT ministry.

“We are reviewing all the laws related to communication and we shall soon be coming to the House to amend most of the existing laws so that we can protect ourselves.

"Yes, we guarantee freedom of expression but ensure that people communicate responsibly and not to misuse a communication platform,” he told Parliament after the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill 2022 was passed. 

Fashioned after a big Parliament investigative story

Journalist Agather Atuhaire, who recently attracted the wrath of Parliament for revealing evidence that the House speakers were getting new sh2.8b ceremonial cars irregularly, fears the Bill is a response to her critical journalism in Parliament. 

Atuhaire believes the wording of the bill with phrases like unauthorized access reeks of an institution trying to placate itself from scrutiny.

The disclosure caused an uproar at a time Ugandans were suffering basic commodity price hikes. 

Atuhaire believes the wording of the bill with phrases like unauthorized access reeks of an institution trying to placate itself from scrutiny.  

“After publishing the information about cars, there was an investigation in Parliament. The CID report was talking about publishing information that I was not authorized to get and Parliament staff suspected of leaking the information were being accused of giving information that they were not authorized to give. 

“When you see those words being used repeatedly in the investigations and considering the information, I am getting from people that I would be arrested over and then you see it in bill,” she said, one could conclude that the law intended to protect Parliament, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and the entire leadership.

Section 12 of the Act as amended states that a person who intentionally accesses or intercepts any program or data without authority or permission to do so commits an offence.

“They are essentially asking us that if you get information for example that they are misusing public funds, one should first ask them for authorization to publish it,” she said.

Journalists, democracy victims

“It affects journalists and democracy. For any democratic dispensation, there ought to be that free flow of information. And in that free flow and exchange of information, that’s where you have unfavourable or unpopular opinions of some sets of people,” Kigozi said. 

Opiyo said no one was safe, including religious persons involved in a faith ministry. 

“People sometimes think the law is dangerous for only a particular group of people. So you would say in this instance: ‘These people on social media have become a problem, so let the law deal with them’. But in fact, the law ensnares everybody. This law will impact businesses, journalism, free expression, music industry as well as people doing satire and cartoons’ Opiyo said.

He warned that the law would impede freedom of the press in ways that we have never seen in the past.

Kigozi described the passing of the bill as a dark moment for freedom of expression as a hallmark of any democratic society. 

“Where an opinion is not as favourable as you think, you use the computer Misuse Act to go after that person because according to this Act, you deem it hate speech and demeaning of your stature as a person, that is wrong,” he said.

Speaker doesn’t want anyone to talk about parliament 

During February 9, 2022 plenary, Among, then Deputy Speaker of Parliament, was furious about the false news that Hilary Onek the minister for relief, disaster preparedness and refugees was sick. 

Speaker Among (Pictured) was inspired by Kampala High Court judge Musa Ssekaana, who fined lawyer Male Mabirizi sh300m for his online posts ‘attacking judicial officers and portraying them in a negative light’.

Onek said he could ‘only forgive them, but let them retract the statement’. Among, then called for a law to stop social media users from ‘writing all the nonsense that you can’t even substantiate’.

Among was inspired by Kampala High Court judge Musa Ssekaana, who fined lawyer Male Mabirizi sh300m for his online posts ‘attacking judicial officers and portraying them in a negative light’. (Mabirizi did not pay the fine and is in now serving an 18 months sentence for the critical posts)

“I read a ruling yesterday which was made by Justice Ssekaana. It said: I will not tolerate anybody writing about judges; or bullying judges on social media. I think that ruling should apply to legislators.

They should leave us to do our work. This business of witch-hunting people, writing all the nonsense that you can’t even substantiate. How can you start writing anything that you feel? We need to make a law in regard to that,” she said.

This story was sponsored by WAN-IFRA Media Freedom in partnership with Press Freedom Committee Uganda