The Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) recently issued a directive to all broadcasters and media houses barring the broadcast of particular songs by local musicians Gravity Omutujju and Lil Pazo.
Their alleged crime? Producing music deemed “obscene” and contrary to our cultural moral standards. While some may applaud the move as a defence of societal decency, it raises important questions about freedom of expression, the role of government, and the true guardians of morality in society.
Gravity Omutujju and Lil Pazo, like all creatives, deserve the freedom to express themselves without fear of censorship. Their work may not appeal to everyone, and that is precisely the point.
Art is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour. It thrives in diversity, in the clash of ideas and perspectives. To regulate it based on an arbitrary notion of morality is to suffocate its very essence.
In 2015, Uganda ratified the Unesco Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which under Article 2(1) provides that cultural diversity can be protected and promoted only if human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, information, and communication, as well as the ability of individuals to choose cultural expressions, are guaranteed.
It is not the government’s role to dictate what is acceptable art. Its role is to create an environment where all forms of expression can flourish, while ensuring that vulnerable groups, like children, are shielded from harm. However, adults have the right to access material that may not be suitable for children.
Courts have rejected censorship of artistic, literary and other creative expressions for adults based solely on what is appropriate for children. If UCC’s concern is protecting the public—particularly children—from inappropriate content, there are more effective ways to do so than banning music.
Regulation 9(a) of the Uganda Communications (Content) Regulations of 2019 provides that an operator shall not broadcast content that may disturb or be harmful to children, including explicit lyrics or lyrics which depict violence during the watershed period. Enforcing this regulation would be a more proportionate approach than blanket censorship.
Furthermore, the most appropriate remedy for artists who feel aggrieved by such directives would be to seek redress before the Uganda Communications Tribunal, as provided for under Section 60 of the 2013 Uganda Communications Act Cap 103. However, this tribunal has never been established.
There is an urgent need for the minister of Information Communications Technology (ICT) and National Guidance to work with relevant authorities to establish this tribunal so that the commission’s decisions can be promptly checked and artists can have a less costly platform for justice.
Leave the artists to their craft, and let the audiences decide what to consume. After all, morality, like art, is subjective. Censorship, no matter how well- intentioned is an infringement on the artists’ right to livelihood and deprives the public of their consumer right to choose as stipulated under the UN guidelines for Consumer Protection.
The writer is a Legal Officer at the Uganda Law Society Rule of Law Department
MY Dear sister, your opinion in this matter is dismissed, UN doesnot run our cultural & moral values mind you. if you are used to obscenity keep it for your eyes & mind. we dont want your decadeness to corrupt our society. please invite gravity & lil pazo out for dinner in your home.