A government should not order a blanket shutdown of the internet unless a state of emergency has been declared.
A state of emergency is declared in specific circumstances that are prescribed by the Constitution. These circumstances include the risks to a country’s existence or territorial integrity.
If the government has not declared a state of emergency and then orders an internet shutdown, it exposes the government and the internet intermediaries to possible claims for businesses losses, among other legal claims.
Moreover, national security cannot be used as pretext to sanction state criminality. In accordance with Article 1 of the 1995 Constitution, those individuals who govern Uganda must do so with the voluntary consent of the citizens.
This voluntary consent to govern, must be renewed every five years through transparent, free and fair elections. To avoid a situation where the voluntary consent of citizens is “manufactured” by the electoral management body, there must be a free flow of information before, during and after elections.
Consequently, democratic accountability is enabled through these periodic elections. Therefore, once elected, leaders are answerable to the citizens at all times during the exercise of their leadership mandate on behalf of the citizens.
This accountability relationship requires the free flow of information that enables the citizens to know how leaders are exercising their mandate. When the government orders an internet shutdown, this act violates the concept of democratic accountability.
On January 13, 2026, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) ordered a blanket internet shutdown in Uganda. This was on the pretext that the Inter-Agency Security Committee had made a “strong recommendation” to prevent electoral fraud, misinformation and disinformation.
Other reasons included prevention of public violence and national security. None of the aforementioned reasons meet the legal threshold for a blanket internet shutdown. The Inter-Agency Security Committee did not seek judicial scrutiny of their “strong recommendation” to UCC.
Consequently, the said recommendation was not grounded in law and there was no judicial oversight, prior to its execution. In a free and democratic society, the rule of law reigns supreme in every action of the government. International human rights standards frown upon blanket internet shutdowns.
There are, however, specific circumstances that may require internet shutdowns. These specific circumstances do not permit total internet shutdowns. The internet shutdowns have to be specific to the potential threats identified by intelligence services.
This is to avoid total shutdowns that immobilize everyone. Before the isolated shutdowns are carried out, there must be judicial oversight. Judicial oversight enables the courts to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the intended reasons for an internet shutdown meet the Oakes test.
The Oakes test is a three part-test that an intended government restriction must pass before it is deemed legally justifiable. The intended government restrictions must first be “provided for by the law”. Secondly, they must be “necessary” and thirdly, they must be “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” by a government.
Apart from United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU) instruments that restrict internet shutdowns, a specific soft law instrument was in October 1995, adopted by experts in Johannesburg, South Africa, to precisely set the parameters of the legitimate use of national security for government restrictions.
This was in view of the abuse of “national security” as an obscure reason to cover-up state-sanctioned criminality. This soft law instrument known as “The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information” lays down the exact limits under which national security can be used for legitimate government restrictions.
In addition to the UN and AU instruments, the Inter-Agency Security Committee is encouraged to read the Johannesburg Principles in order to make more informed and citizen-centered recommendations, to avoid rule by disinformation.
The author is an advocate of the High Court of Uganda.
I am surprised that people are still debating the “legality of state actions” and warning that “we are returning to the errors of Obote and Amin.” The reality is that we passed that point long -long ago. Uganda has effectively been a lawless state for more than three decades, far beyond the eras of Obote and Amin. The only difference is that, for a long time, these extreme abuses — killings, abductions, forced displacement, and more — were concentrated in Northern Uganda. The rest of the country was made to believe that the people of the North somehow deserved this treatment, and many even celebrated (and some still do) their suffering and isolation. But, as the saying goes, the chickens eventually come home to roost. Today, the violence has moved closer to home, with the Baganda now emerging as the primary targets of state-orchestrated killings and abductions.
Whether we like it or not, Museveni’s use of military violence is unmatched in the history of our country. We once demonized the people of the North, gave them names such as anyanya – I saw a video of a certain lady pastor pleading with M7 to stop harassing Bobi Wine and by extension, the Baganda and she still used the term anyanya to make her plea appealing to Museveni – and now the very system and person(s) we embraced, and considered our own, have turned against us and are now brutalizing us. Let us not waste time talking about the law as if there is law in Uganda!