Emerging and Revolving Trends to Criminalizing Dissent in Uganda

Author: Dr. Fred Sekindi

April 21, 2026

Members of the Uganda Police arrest protesters marching to parliament during a planned anti-corruption demonstration in Kampala on 23 July 2024. [Image credit: AFP - BADRU KATUMBA]

Impact of continued use of colonial laws on the right to freedom of assembly

At the height of political activism for independence in 1950, the British colonial government enacted the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128 to fend off rebellions against colonialism. Provisions of this law created offences against the State, such as treason, wrongfully inducing a boycott, promoting war on chiefs, publication of information prejudicial to security, and promoting sectarianism. It also created offences for unlawful assemblies, riots, and against public tranquility, including belonging to and managing an unlawful society. The Penal Code also established offences of nuisance and offences against health and convenience, such as idle and disorderly behaviours, as well as rogue and vagabond conduct.^[1] In January 2006, more than 50 years after the Penal Code was enacted, Tubemanzi Deus was charged with conducting himself in a manner likely to cause breach of the peace contrary to the Penal Code, when he photographed the President without his consent. He was convicted and sentenced to one month of imprisonment by the Magistrate’s Court. The High Court quashed the conviction and held that the trial Magistrate erred in law in convicting Tubemanzi, because merely taking a photograph of the President without permission does not constitute an offence of idle and disorderly behaviour.^[2] In 2007, the Penal Code was amended, but the colonial offences were not repealed.^[3] In 2012, the pressure group Activists for Change (A4C) launched a campaign dubbed ‘walk to work’ to protest against corruption and bad governance. The Attorney General declared A4C an unlawful society and banned it under the provisions of the Penal Code. Following this ban, A4C formed another pressure group and named it ‘For God and My Country’ (4GC), which was also declared an unlawful society by the police. Thus, the founders complained about this ban to the Constitutional Court in the case of Mathias Mpuuga & Muhammad Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General. The Court found that the impugned provision of the Penal Code offended the right to freedom of expression, assembly, and association as protected by the 1995 Constitution.  It thus declared the offending provision null and void.

Judicial scrutiny of colonial laws are defied for political expedience

A group of street vendors and informal workers challenged the offence of rogue and vagabond conduct in 2018 in the case of Francis Tumwesige Ateenyi vs Attorney General. They complained that the police used this offence to harass and arrest them while they were hawking and engaged in other lawful activities. The Constitutional Court declared the offence of rogue and vagabond conduct unconstitutional and thus null and void. The Court held that the offence violated several rights guaranteed by the 1995 Constitution, including rights to be presumed innocent, freedom of movement, assembly and association, and the right to personal liberty. It also found that the offence of rogue and vagabond conduct was not sufficiently defined and, as such, it allowed the police, prosecutors, and judges to make arbitrary decisions and thus, it had the potential to criminalize innocent and lawful action as well as violate the right to a fair trial. The police arrested six women (Doreen Nyanjura, Anna Adeke, Wokuri Mudanda, Susan Nanyojo, Mariam Kizito, and Alice Amony) on 30 May 2022 while they held placards protesting high prices of essential goods and the detention of the then opposition leader, Kizza Besigye.^[4] They were charged with inciting violence and unlawful assembly under the Penal Code. Similarly, in July 2024, a group of young people organized protests against corruption on social media with the hashtag #StopCorruption. The police declared the planned protests illegal because they had not been notified, and thus, they did not clear the protests, which were likely to cause public disorder.^[5] When the protesters took to the streets, they were charged with several offences under the Penal Code, including common nuisance; idle and disorderly behaviour; disturbing religious assemblies; causing annoyance or obstruction, or inconvenience to the public in exercise of common rights; and assembling needlessly and without reasonable occasion to provoke other persons to commit a breach of peace. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) dropped the charge of idle and disorderly behaviour against some of the protesters, explaining this as an administrative decision.^[6] Some of the protesters were detained at police stations for more than 48 hours in contravention of the 1995 Constitution, some were subjected to stringent, but legally questionable bail conditions set by magistrates, while the others were remanded. In this context, the threat of arrest and detention has been used by the State to intimidate dissenters.

Analysing post-colonial legislation and judicial response

The Police Act (1994) granted the police powers to direct the conduct of assemblies and processions on public roads or streets or at any public place. This law empowered the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or any other person delegated by the IGP to issue a notice to any person responsible for convening an assembly or forming a procession, prohibiting the convening of such an event. In the case of Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General, the petitioner, and coordinator of an organization known as Popular Resistance Against Life Presidency (PRALP), was aggrieved by the refusal of UPF, acting under the power given to IGP by the Police Act, to allow his organization to hold a public meeting. Thus, he complained to the Constitutional Court. The Court found that the impugned provisions of the Police Act were inconsistent and contrary to the freedom to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully and unarmed, and to petition as guaranteed by the 1995 Constitution. It declared the offending provisions of the Police Act null and void.

The amendments of 2006 to the Police Act allow the police to co-operate with civilian authorities, the general population, and other security organs established under the Constitution. Concerning the latter, there has been an increased militarization of policing functions, including the management of public assemblies.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995) came into force on 22 September, 1995.  It is the supreme law of Uganda. Laws that conflict with it are null and void. The Constitutional Court is entrusted with interpreting its provisions. On enactment, it forbade multi-party politics, and as such, no multi-party presidential elections were held in 1996 and 2001. In a referendum held in July 2005, Ugandans voted overwhelmingly in support of reintroducing the multi-party political system; subsequently, multi-party elections were held in 2006.^[7]

Article 29 (1)(a) of the 1995 Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, while 29(1)(d) and (e) provide for the freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed, as well as to petition. However, these rights are not among the absolute rights listed under Article 44. This means that the State may limit them under certain circumstances prescribed in Article 43. When interpreting Article 43, Mulenga JSC, in the case of Charles Onyango Obbo & Andrew Mwenda Vs Attorney General, stated that:

“…protection of the guaranteed rights is a primary objective of the Constitution. Limiting their enjoyment is an exception to their protection, and is therefore a secondary objective. Although the Constitution provides for both, it is obvious that the primary objective must be dominant. It can be overridden only in exceptional circumstances that give rise to the secondary objective. In that eventuality, only minimal impairment of enjoyment of the right strictly warranted by the exceptional circumstances is permissible. The exceptional circumstances set out in clause (1) of Article 43 are the prejudice or violation of protected rights and others prejudice or breach of social values categorized as public interest. The framers of the Constitution were concerned about a probable danger of misuse or abuse of the limitation under Article 43(1) in the guise of defence of public interest, and for avoidance of that danger, they enacted clause (2) which expressly prohibits the use of political persecution and detention without trial, as means of preventing, or measures to remove, prejudice to the public interest”.[8]

Legislating to stifle political participation and public

The Political Parties and Organizations Act was enacted in 2005 following the reintroduction of multi-party politics. This law regulates the formation and running of political parties in Uganda. It provides every Ugandan citizen with the right to form or join a political party or organization of their choice.

On enactment in 2011, the Computer Misuse Act provided that it is a misdemeanor for any person who uses electronic communication to disturb or attempt to disturb the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person. Makerere University Research Fellow, Stella Nyanzi, was convicted of cyber harassment of President Museveni and his wife and of using offensive communication in various posts on her Facebook page under this law.  She was sentenced to 18 months in jail. She appealed the sentence in the High Court and was acquitted and set free on February 20, 2020. In September 2011, Suzan Namata was charged with cyber harassment and offensive communication contrary to the Computer Misuse Act, after she recorded a video in which she threatened to hit President Museveni with her genitals.^[9] In another case, in December 2021, Rukirabashaija Kakwenza, a satirical novelist, was arrested, detained, and charged with issuing offensive communications after he made unflattering remarks about the president and his son on Twitter. Kakwenza is also the author of ‘The Greedy Barbarian’, a satirical novel that describes high-level corruption in a fictional country. He was reportedly tortured during his detention. On 14 October, 2022, the President signed into law the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022. This Act amends the Computer Misuse Act of 2011 by imposing criminal sanctions for using electronic communication to disturb or attempt to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of another person, and augmenting provisions on unauthorized access to information or data. Additionally, it criminalises sharing and writing of information through a computer that may potentially ridicule, degrade, or demean another person, group, tribe, ethnicity, a religion, or gender; prohibits sharing the information of a child without the authorisation and consent of a parent or guardian, and information that promotes hate speech or is false, malicious or shares unsolicited information. The Computer Misuse Amendment Act also restricts people convicted of an offence under it from holding public office for a period of ten years. In the case of Andrew Karamagi & Another vs Attorney General, the petitioner sought to challenge provisions of the Computer Misuse (Amendment Act) that criminalized the use of electronic communication to disturb or attempt to disturb the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person. The Constitutional Court declared the provisions null and void because they conflicted with the right to freedom of speech and expression as protected by the 1995 Constitution. It also found that the disputed provisions were vague and loosely defined, and as such, they had the potential to be enforced arbitrarily to criminalize innocent members of the public. 

The Public Order Management Act (POMA) was enacted in 2013 following the second cycle of multi-party elections in 2011, after the country witnessed the so-called ‘Buganda riots’ in 2009 and the 2011 “Walk to Work” campaign. State security agencies responded to this campaign with brutal force. Similar to the Penal Code, the POMA granted the IGP or his or her designated officer discretionary powers and broad authority to stop or prevent the holding of public meetings where there are reasonable grounds that such meetings would result in a breach of peace. On 26 March 2020, the Constitutional Court in the case of Human Rights Network Uganda & 4 Ors v Attorney General^[10] found that:

 “(...) the police have absolutely no authority to stop the holding of public gatherings on grounds of alleged possible breach of peace if such gatherings are allowed to proceed. The police’s duty is to regulate the holding of public gatherings and to ensure there is no breach of peace… The attention of the police must be directed at the individuals causing the breach of peace”.[11]

The Court also found that the disputed provision of POMA was enacted in violation of the 1995 Constitution insofar as it replaces the provision of the Police Act that was declared null and void in the case of Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General. Justice Alfonse Owinyo Dollo further provided counsel on the scope of a peaceful demonstration vis-à-vis riot. He opined that:

 “To my understanding, ‘peaceful demonstration’ and ‘riot’ do not by any stretch of construction connote the same thing. While a riot would involve violence and public disorder; a peaceful demonstration would, to the contrary, not do so.”[12]

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015 defines terrorism to include any act prejudicial to national security or public safety and any act that creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, and any act of violence aimed at causing the death of a civilian not engaged in armed conflict, endangering the life of a person, other than the person committing the act of terrorism. This broad definition has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters. Under this law, the offence of terrorism is punishable with death or life imprisonment.

On 1 July, 2018, the Excise Duty Act of 2014 was amended to include a daily tax on the use of “over the top” (OTT) mobile apps and services. This law defined OTT services as the transmission or receipt of voice or messages over the internet. OTT was levied on the use of more than sixty websites and applications, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Skype. In a letter to the Finance Minister Matia Kasaija - ordering the Minister to impose the tax - President Museveni wrote:

 “I am not going to propose a tax on internet use for educational, research or reference purposes . . . these must remain free. However, olugambo [gossip] on social media (opinions, prejudices, insults, friendly chats) and advertisements by Google and I do not know who else must pay tax because we need resources to cope with the consequences of their lugambo [gossip.]”.[13]

At the time, internet access in Uganda had increased rapidly, and over 22% of Ugandans had access to the Internet.^[14]This was not the first time that President Museveni had aimed “gossip” on social media. During the 2016 general elections, the Government blocked access to social media to stop people from “telling lies”.^[15] OTT was imposed at a time when social media was more capable than ever before of playing a large role for opposition political movements. For the first time in Uganda’s history, mass protests had been planned entirely over social media. In fact, the first mass protest planned entirely over social media by feminist activists occurred just one day before the social media tax went into effect.^[16] In July 2021, OTT was repealed and replaced with a 12% tax on data packages in yet another grip on freedom of expression.

On 31 March 2019, the President assented to the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act (HREA). This legislation gives effect to the 1995 Constitution. It further provides a procedure for enforcing human rights. The HREA provides that any public officer who singularly or in association with others violates human rights will be held personally liable for such an act. This liability exists, even in cases where the Government is also liable. This legislation raises the bar of accountability for human rights violations.

Legislative response to the state of emergency

Uganda opted to use statutory instruments that were issued under the Public Health Act to manage the spread of COVID-19. In this context, the President was praised for not invoking the power granted to the executive by the 1995 Constitution to declare a state of emergency. This would allow the Government to suspend some human rights. The reality is that the country was under a de facto state of emergency. On 18 March 2020, before the first confirmed case of the virus, the Minister for Health invoked the regulatory power provided for under the Public Health Act to issue rules and orders aimed at fending off the spread of COVID-19. These rules included a 32-day suspension of mass gatherings. Thereafter, the Ministry of Health issued the Public Health (Control of COVID-19) Rules of 2020, which restricted public gatherings and meetings. The President also continuously made pronouncements as part of these rules. These rules imposed a lockdown and a curfew for most of 2020 and the year after. State security agencies established an interagency Joint Task Force (JTF) under the command of the National Security Council. The reported purpose of the JTF was to support the enforcement of these rules. However, efforts by State security forces to avert the spread of the pandemic were characterized by excessive use of force, human rights violations, and dispersals of gatherings of political opponents of the NRM during the campaigns for the 2021 general elections.  Broadly, political campaigns took place on social media, television, and radio as opposed to in-person meetings. At the same time, UPF established the ‘Violence Suppression Unit’ to which all TV and radio stations were required to provide names of politicians they intended to host.^[17] According to the police, this step was necessary to enforce public health measures through preventing crowds from gathering outside media houses.^[18] The police leadership also claimed that their budgetary allocation was insufficient to allow the police to effectively perform their functions.^[19] The COVID-19 Rules filled the legal vacuum that was created by the Constitutional Court when it annulled provisions of the POMA that offended the right to freedom of assembly. The steady militarization of UPF, evidenced by military officers being placed in key leadership positions that commenced with the appointment of General Katumba Wamala, yielded joint operations between the UPF and the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) and blurred the lines of accountability. This resulted in severe human rights violations, for instance, the death of 54 people and the enforced disappearances during the 2021 general elections.^[20]

Conclusion

The early 2020’s have witnessed an increase in the use of social media platforms as forums for galvanizing free expression and for assembly. These forums are generally considered safer than the traditional forms of public protests that security forces commonly respond to with brutal force. At the same time, the State has noted the power of social media in galvanizing the masses and responded with legislation aimed at criminalizing the exchange of dissenting views on social media platforms.

The State perceives dissent and, by extension, public protests as a crime against it. All protests, including peaceful ones, are considered riots. As such, the State has enacted repressive legislation characterized by vague laws and used its coercive institutions to deny all forms of dissent, including protests. 

Following successful challenges in courts against laws enacted in post-colonial Uganda, such as the Police Act and POMA, UPF, the DPP has recycled the use of colonial/petty offences contained in the Penal Code, for instance, idle and disorderly behaviours, common nuisance, etcetera, against peaceful protesters. Such laws pose the danger of criminalizing innocent persons. The militarization of managing public protests has resulted in human rights violations and blurred lines of accountability for law enforcement agents. 

Contestations for the freedom of assembly are, on one hand, between the judiciary and activists and, on the other, the legislature and the executive. The judiciary has denounced laws that aimed at stifling the freedom of assembly, only for the legislature, executive, and the security forces to reenact and enforce the same laws, respectively. There are challenges to protecting the rights of persons charged with protest-related offences at the magisterial level.

---

Glossary

• Activism: The policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.

• Bail: The temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial by the court, sometimes on condition that a sum of money is lodged to guarantee their appearance in court.

• Corruption: The abuse of power for private gain by a government official. It often involves dishonest or illegal behaviour.

• Dissent: Holding or expression of opinions at variance with those of another group or person.

• Freedom of assembly: The right of individuals to gather peacefully for a common cause.

• Fundamental human rights: Basic rights that individuals are entitled to because they are human.

• Hate speech: Abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.

• Legislating: The process of making law.

• Misdemeanor: A lesser criminal act or inaction.

• Offence: An act or inaction that is prohibited and punished by the law.

• Protesters: Persons who participate in an organized peaceful protest to publicly express their disagreement, often with the government or its officials.

• Public disorder: Substantial interference with public peace.

• Riot: A violent disturbance of peace by a group of persons.

• Unconstitutional: Not in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or with its procedural rules.

• Unlawful assembly: A gathering of persons with the intent to riot.

---

 Footnotes/References

^[1] See Chapters V &VI>constitution of uganda 1995 pdf .

^[2]  Criminal Revision No.HCT-00-CR-CV-CO-02-2006 Criminal Revision No.HCT-00-CR-CV-CO-02-2006..

^[3] Penal Code Amendment Act, 2007Penal Code Amendment Act, 2007.

[4] Observer “Kampala deputy mayor Nyanjura, Soroti Woman MP remanded over inflation protest” 30 May, 2022,Kampala deputy mayor Nyanjura, Soroti Woman MP remanded over inflation protest - The Observer.

^[5] Tuko “Uganda Warns Youths Planning Anti-Government Protests to Desist: "This is Not Kenya”, 21 July 2024, Uganda Warns Youths Planning Anti-Government Protests to Desist: "This is Not Kenya" - Tuko.co.ke.

^[6] Monitor “DPP Drops Idle and Disorderly Charges” 6 August, 2024,Demos: DPP drops idle and disorderly charges | Monitor.

^[7] Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005,Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005.

^[8] Mulenga JSC,Charles Onyango Obbo & Andrew Mwenda Vs Attorney General,Obbo & Mwenda v Attorney General Judgment | PDF | Burden Of Proof (Law) | Constitution_.

^[9] Daily Monitor, “Woman remanded for threatening to hit President Museveni with her genitals” 11 January 2021,Daily Monitor, “Woman remanded for threatening to hit President Museveni with her genitals” 11 January 2021.

[10] (Constitutional Petition No. 56 of 2013) [2020] UGCC 6 (26 March 2020),(Constitutional Petition No. 56 of 2013) [2020] UGCC 6 (26 March 2020).

^[11] Ibid, the lead judgment, Hon. Justice Cheborion Barishaki, JA/JCC.

^[12] JSC Owinyo Dollo,Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney GeneralMuwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General (Civil Reference 38 of 2017) [2018] UGSC 33 (28 July 2018) – ULII.

^[13] Yasiin Mugerwa & Tom Malaba, Museveni Slaps Taxes on Social Media Users, DAILY MONITOR (Apr. 1, 2018), Yasiin Mugerwa & Tom Malaba, Museveni Slaps Taxes on Social Media Users, DAILY MONITOR (Apr. 1, 2018), - Search.

^[14] Freedom on the Net 2017: Uganda, FREEDOM HOUSE,Uganda: Freedom on the Net 2017 Country Report | Freedom House.

^[15] Uganda Election: Facebook and Whatsapp Blocked, BBC (Feb. 18, 2016),Uganda election: Facebook and Whatsapp blocked - BBC News.

^[16] Edna Ninsiima, Ugandan Women March for Their Lives, DAILY MONITOR (July 7, 2018),Ugandan women march for their lives | Monitor.

^[17] Nile Post “Police Orders Media Houses to Submit Names of Politicians they will host on Talk Shows” 4, August 2020,Police orders media houses to submit names of politicians they will host on talk shows.

^[18] Ibid.

^[19] E. Raoul Wallenberg Institute’s Regional Africa Programme “COMMON STANDARDS FOR POLICING IN EASTERN AFRICA: UGANDA Assessment of the Uganda Police Force’s progress towards meeting the Common Standards for Policing in Eastern Africa, 2022,cs-for-policing-ea-study-uganda.pdf.

^[20] Chapter Four Uganda, “Uganda: Joint Civil Society Statement on Enforced Disappearances”, 17 March 2021,Uganda: Joint civil society statement on enforced disappearances - Chapter Four Uganda.