In a five panel Constitutional Court Tuesday morning judgment, government has been blocked from enforcing six sections of the Computer Misuse Act 2022 (Amended) and one from the Penal Court code after quashing the Act over illegal passing and infringement to fundamental rights.
n an eighty five page judgement delivered virtually, all the judges agree that Sections; 11, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29 Amended as Act and Section 162 of the Penal Code of infringe on fundamental rights and were illegally passed by the house without following the rules of procedure including the required number of MPS.
Petitioners addressing the media on October 17, 2022 after filing their petition challenging the Computer Misuse Act 2022 (Amended)
This decision comes in after several Civil Society Organisations, Human and Media Rights ran to court challenging the passing of the Act on several grounds including lack of parliament quorum during the passing of the said law.
The decision by justices including Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema, Esta Nambayo, Ketrah Kittariisibwa Katunguka, Irene Mulyagonja and and John Miuke Musisi bars government to enforce the said quashed provisions of the law.
“A permanent injuction issues to restrain the respondent and all government agencies, authorities and officials from enforcing the impugned provisions of sections 11, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Computer Misuse Act 2023 and section 162 of the Penal Code Act” Court orders.
ver twenty six petitioners ran to the court challenging some provisions of the sections in this law over infringement on fundamental rights.
Bikobere Farida, a journalist and one of the petitioners displaying a placard belittling the Act, October 17, 2022 during the filling of the petition at the constitutional court.
These petitioners include; Alternative Digitalk, an online media platform, Human rights activist, Norman Tumuhimbise, media and Human Rights Actoivist and defender, Mukose Arnold Anthony, journalists (Bikobere Farida, Mukiibi Jeremiah, Luwedde Lilian, Nabukeera Teangel Teddy) lawyers (Namirembe Angella, RIP, Simon Peter Esomu, Kato Tumusiime, Odur Anthony,Muhindo Morgan, Lilian Drabo, Wandera Andrerw, Agather Atuhairwe), Hon. Winnie Kiiza and Civil Society Organisations (Human Rights Network for Journalists -Uganda, Chapter Four Uganda, Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa, Center for Constitutional Governance, Unwanted Witness Uganda, Centre for Public Interest Law, Strategic Response International, African Centre for Media Excellence, and Editors Guild.
Court observed that the default mode of making decisions in Parliament is by voting, according to Article 89 of the Constitution but according to the evidence on the court records, there was no proof of voting.
Petitioners with their lawyers arranging the petition at the constitutional court on October 17, 2022.
“Except as otherwise prescribed by this Constitution or any law consistent with this Constitution any question proposed for decision of Parliament shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting in a manner prescribed by rules of procedure made by Parliament under article 94 of this Constitution.” Court notes.
Court also faults parliament for allowing Ex-officials to vote an act that violated Article 78 of the constitution of Uganda.
“A Vice-President, Prime Minister or a Minister who by virtue of article 78 of the Constitution, is an ex oflicio Member of Parliament, shall not vote in the House.” Judgement reads.
Further court found out through the Attorney General’s defense that during the passing of the Act, the house was less that three thirds required during such session and making the law illegal.
Court also observed that this Act didn’t represent national interests, hence violating national objectives and directive principles of state policy.
Petitioners at the constitutional Court on October 17, 2022.
By quashing this law, all suspects and accused through the quashed provisions of the sections are now deemed free since the sections have been annulled.
Speaking to Norman Tumuhimbise immediately after receiving the ruling, he expressed gratitude and thanked the judiciary, activists and organist ions that decided to challenge the law, saying that from the beginning, this was worthy violating because it lacked merit.
By; Mukose Arnold Anthony, mukosearnanth@gmail.com
Digitalk Journalist, Programmes Director.