Your Online Speech Matters, But Legal Care Is Needed

Online speech is no longer something separate from ordinary life. A Facebook comment about a public official, a WhatsApp message forwarded in a family group, a TikTok video about service delivery, or a short post on X can now place a person in the middle of a legal dispute. That is why the Constitutional Court decision in Alternative Digitalk Limited and Others v The Attorney General is important. It speaks not only to activists and journalists, but also to students, traders, artists, religious leaders, local commentators and ordinary citizens who use the internet to take part in public conversation.

The Court held that the Computer Misuse Amendment Act, 2022 was null and void because Parliament did not properly ascertain quorum when passing it. Quorum can sound like a procedural detail, but it is more than a parliamentary formality. When a law restricts speech, criminalises publication, or gives the State power to arrest someone because of words posted online, the law making process itself must be constitutionally sound. If that process is defective, the restriction on rights becomes deeply questionable.

The decision appears to strengthen the position of people who speak, post, share or criticise online. The affected provisions included offences that had raised concern because of their broad and uncertain wording, including provisions associated with malicious information, unsolicited information, misuse of social media and some forms of online publication. A vague criminal speech law can create fear even before anyone is charged. People may stop asking questions, stop criticising leaders, or avoid reporting community problems simply because they do not know what words might be treated as a crime.

The Court also addressed criminal libel under the Penal Code and found the affected provisions inconsistent with freedom of expression obligations. Government agencies were restrained from enforcing those provisions. For a person facing summons, arrest or prosecution under the affected laws, this is not just an abstract constitutional victory. It may mean that the authority demanding attendance at a police station or continuing criminal proceedings must explain exactly which valid law it is relying on.

There is, however, an important caution. The judgment should not be understood as a licence to harm other people online. Threats, fraud, impersonation, privacy violations, incitement, unlawful disclosure of intimate or confidential information, and some civil claims for defamation may still raise legal consequences under other valid laws. The better reading is that the State cannot rely on vague or unlawfully enacted speech offences to silence people, but individuals still carry responsibility for the real world effects of what they publish.

For ordinary users, the practical question is often what to do when police, a complainant, or a public official points to online speech and demands an explanation. The first step is to ask for the exact offence being relied upon. It is not enough for someone to say that a post is illegal without identifying the law. The second step is to keep copies of the summons, charge sheet, complaint, screenshots and any messages from the authorities. The third step is to seek legal advice before signing a statement that may later be used in proceedings. This may sound cautious, but it is sensible where criminal law and digital evidence meet.

The ruling may also suggest a broader rule of law lesson. A government cannot protect rights by asking citizens to trust that vague laws will be used kindly. Criminal law must be clear enough for ordinary people to understand, and laws that limit constitutional freedoms must be passed through a lawful process. That is especially important in the digital space, where a post written in anger or humour can spread quickly, be misunderstood and attract official attention within hours.

At the same time, responsible online conduct still matters. A person who wants to criticise a public officer can usually do so more safely by focusing on facts, public duties, dates, decisions and documents rather than insults or personal attacks. A community journalist writing about a local health centre can ask why drugs are missing, who is responsible and what records show, without inventing facts. A citizen sharing a complaint about corruption can preserve credibility by keeping receipts, letters or photographs that support the claim. Rights are stronger when they are exercised with care.

The key public message is that online expression in Uganda has received important constitutional protection, and the State should not continue using provisions that the Constitutional Court has declared unenforceable. Still, speech rights do not remove every legal boundary. The safer and more principled approach is to speak boldly where public interest requires it, but also to avoid threats, impersonation, privacy invasion and knowingly false claims. Freedom of expression is most powerful when it is treated not as a slogan, but as a serious constitutional right linked to accountability and public participation.

Source note and disclaimer. This article is based on Alternative Digitalk Limited and Others v The Attorney General, Consolidated Constitutional Petitions Nos 34, 37 and 42 of 2022, [2026] UGCC 3, Constitutional Court of Uganda, 17 March 2026. It is prepared for general public rights awareness in Uganda. Before relying on it for a particular case, the current legal position, any appeal and any later legislative action should be confirmed with a qualified lawyer.

Suggested citation

Ronald Serwanga, “Your Online Speech Matters, But Legal Care Is Needed” East Africa Legal Insight (16 May 2026).