The Uganda Law Society has threatened legal action against prosecutors accused of using criminal charges to punish journalists and social media commentators, demanding an immediate end to cases arising from online criticism of government officials.
In a formal complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on Saturday, November 7, the lawyers challenged the application of Section 82 of the Uganda Communications Act, Cap. 103, arguing that a law intended to deal with fake emergency alerts was being used to target people expressing opinions and reporting on matters of public interest.
The Society said the provision was being given a wider meaning than intended, allowing prosecutors to pursue individuals over social media content, including allegations of corruption and misconduct by public officials.
Section 82 criminalises the knowing transmission of false or fraudulent distress signals, messages, calls or radiograms.
"Section 82 of the Uganda Communications Act provides that 'Any person who knowingly sends, transmits or causes to be sent or transmitted any false or fraudulent distress signal, message, call or radiogram of any kind commits an offence,'" ULS explained.
The lawyers maintained that the law was designed to prevent fake emergency communications that could divert rescue teams and expose people to danger.
"If properly construed, this provision is directed at false emergency signals of the kind traditionally associated with maritime, aviation, or radio communications: Mayday calls, SOS transmissions, false EPIRB activations, and similar conduct that diverts emergency services and endangers life," it added.
"It was never intended, and cannot constitutionally be stretched, to criminalise ordinary expressions of opinion, journalistic content, or allegations of corruption made on social-media platforms or online channels."
To support its concerns, ULS pointed to the cases of journalist Arnold Anthony Mukose and online commentator Susan Kushaba, whose prosecutions it described as examples of criminal law being used to discourage criticism.
Mukose had been charged over publications allegedly claiming that Uganda's First Lady, Janet Museveni, had died. His case was later dismissed for want of prosecution after he had spent time in remand, according to the Society.
Kushaba, meanwhile, is facing three charges of transmitting false distress signals before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Buganda Road.
Her prosecution relates to TikTok videos uploaded between January and October 2026 through her account, @The Investigator UG. In the recordings, she allegedly accused several public officials, among them Minsa Kabanda, Kyofatogabye Joseph Kabuye and Katumba Muzamir Milundi, of fraud, land grabbing and misappropriation of public funds.
ULS disputed the basis of the charges, saying the videos consisted of claims and opinions concerning issues of public concern rather than fabricated emergency messages.
It further observed that the prosecution had not alleged that any emergency response team was deceived, called away from its duties or otherwise disrupted by the publications.
The lawyers said the cases raised serious concerns about the protection of freedom of expression and personal liberty under Uganda's Constitution. They also argued that the prosecutions conflicted with the country's obligations under international human rights agreements.
The Society further faulted prosecutors for allegedly ignoring the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions' 2023 Decision to Charge Guidelines.
The guidelines require prosecutors to establish that there is a realistic prospect of securing a conviction and that taking a person to court would serve the public interest.
According to ULS, the cases against Mukose and Kushaba fail both requirements because the conduct cited in the charges does not constitute an offence under Section 82.
The lawyers want the DPP to examine all pending prosecutions under the provision and terminate those involving ordinary communication, journalistic reporting and criticism on matters of public interest.
They have also called for a directive to all prosecutors clarifying that the law should not be used to pursue individuals over social media publications or personal opinions that do not involve false emergency communications.
In a stern warning, the Society said prosecutors who knowingly maintain cases without a proper legal foundation, particularly where the intention is to suppress criticism, could be held personally liable.
“We put you and every prosecutor who continues to prefer or maintain such charges on formal notice. The knowing institution or continuation of criminal proceedings that have no foundation in law, for the collateral purpose of silencing criticism, exposes the responsible officers to personal civil liability for malicious prosecution and for the violation of fundamental rights under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, Cap. 12. Victims and public-interest litigants will not hesitate to pursue such remedies,” it warned.
Beyond court action, ULS said it was prepared to pursue accountability efforts locally and internationally, including seeking targeted sanctions against officials found to have enabled the alleged abuse of the law.
The Society has given the DPP seven days to respond to its complaint and explain the steps being taken to address the concerns.