ULS slams DPP over ‘systematic abuse’ of Communications Law to silence journalists, critics

In Summary: In a strongly worded protest letter dated November 6, the Society demanded the withdrawal of prosecutions arising from ordinary speech, warns prosecutors of possible personal civil liability and threatens domestic and international accountability campaigns. The protest comes amid renewed scrutiny of prosecutions involving journalists, including Daily Express Senior Reporter Remmy Asiteza, who spent more than two months on remand before securing bail last week.

Kampala, Uganda — The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has issued a stern warning to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Mr Lino Anguzu, accusing his office of allowing criminal proceedings to be used to intimidate journalists, silence public criticism and punish citizens who speak out against public officials.

In a strongly worded protest letter dated November 6, 2026, the Society challenges what it describes as the “continued and systematic misuse” of Section 82 of the Uganda Communications Act, Cap. 103, arguing that a provision intended to punish false emergency distress signals is increasingly being invoked against ordinary speech, online publications and allegations of wrongdoing by public officials.

In the seven-page letter seen by DailyExpress, the Society President and Head of the Bar, Isaac Ssemakadde, wants an immediate review and discontinuation of pending prosecutions arising from ordinary speech, journalistic reporting and public-interest criticism.

At the centre of the protest is Section 82 of the Uganda Communications Act, which criminalises knowingly sending, transmitting or causing to be transmitted a false or fraudulent distress signal, message, call or radiogram.

Mr Ssemakadde argues that the provision should be understood within the context of false emergency communications, such as fabricated Mayday calls, SOS transmissions and false emergency alerts capable of diverting rescue services and endangering lives.

“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,” Ssemakadde explained.

“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,” he added.

A case of Mukose and Kushaba

To demonstrate what it describes as a pattern of abuse, ULS cited recent cases of journalist Arnold Anthony Mukose and social-media commentator Susan Kushaba. Mukose was charged with sending false distress signals after allegedly publishing claims that First Lady Janet Kataaha Museveni had died.

According to Ssemakadde, the particulars of the charge did not disclose any distress signal of the kind contemplated under Section 82. The Society says the case was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution after Mukose had spent a prolonged period on remand, which Ssemakadde describes as “a classic example of process as punishment”.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) separately reported that the charges against Mukose were dropped on August 24, 2026, after he had spent five weeks in prison.

In the ongoing prosecution of Kushaba in Criminal Case No. BUG-CO-1632/2026 before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Buganda Road, the former Owino Market leader is battling three counts of sending false distress signals arising from TikTok videos published on the account @The Investigator UG between January and October 2026, in which she allegedly accused public officials, including Kampala Minister Minsa Kabanda Nabbengo, Minister Joseph Kyofatogabye and Katumba Muzamir Milundi, of fraud, land grabbing and embezzlement.

In the letter to the DPP, Ssemakadde argues that the videos contained allegations and opinions on matters of public interest rather than false emergency communications. It further says the prosecution has not alleged that any emergency service was misled, diverted or disrupted by the publications.

The Society maintains that the fact that the complainants are public officials criticised in the videos should not turn ordinary public-interest commentary into a distress-signal offence.

Ssemakadde has since put the DPP and prosecutors on formal notice, warning that those who knowingly institute or maintain criminal proceedings without a legal foundation, with the intention of suppressing criticism, could face personal civil liability for malicious prosecution and violations of fundamental rights.

“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,” he warned.

He also wants Anguzu to immediately review and discontinue all pending Section 82 prosecutions arising from ordinary speech, journalistic reporting and public-interest criticism, including Kushaba’s case, and the DPP to issue a circular to all prosecutors directing that Section 82 should not be used to criminalise social-media content, online publications or expressions of opinion that do not involve false emergency signals.

The letter, addressed to DPP Anguzu, was also copied to the Attorney General, Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, Principal Judge, Chief Registrar, Inspector General of Government, Uganda Human Rights Commission and Uganda Communications Commission, among other institutions.

The DPP’s response to the November 6 protest letter had not been established by the time of writing.