Two outspoken Ugandan lawyers have hauled telecommunications companies and the Uganda Communications Commission to the High Court over what they describe as an illegal and suffocating internet blackout that plunged the country into digital darkness during the just-concluded elections. Advocates Michael Aboneka and Raymond Amumpaire say the shutdown was imposed abruptly, without warning, explanation, or […]
Two outspoken Ugandan lawyers have hauled telecommunications companies and the Uganda Communications Commission to the High Court over what they describe as an illegal and suffocating internet blackout that plunged the country into digital darkness during the just-concluded elections.
Advocates Michael Aboneka and Raymond Amumpaire say the shutdown was imposed abruptly, without warning, explanation, or lawful authority, cutting off millions of Ugandans from information, communication, and economic activity at the most critical moment of the democratic process.
In their court petition, the lawyers paint a grim picture of a country suddenly silenced online as voters headed to the polls, businesses ground to a halt, and citizens were left unable to access news, verify election developments, or communicate freely.
They argue that the blackout amounted to a gross abuse of power and a direct violation of constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of expression, access to information, access to education and the right to earn a living.
According to the petition, the shutdown crippled online businesses, paralysed mobile money services, disrupted digital banking, and left traders, boda boda riders, content creators, and small entrepreneurs stranded without income.
The lawyers say the economic shock was immediate and severe, particularly for urban workers and small businesses that rely entirely on mobile money and internet-based platforms for daily transactions.
Aboneka and Amumpaire further accuse the Uganda Communications Commission of acting outside its legal mandate by failing to issue a public directive or provide any legal justification for the sweeping digital restriction.
They argue that no state of emergency was declared, no court order was issued, and no explanation was given to the public, making the blackout arbitrary, opaque, and unlawful.
The petition also takes aim at telecom companies, accusing them of blindly implementing the shutdown without demanding lawful written instructions or questioning the legality of the orders they were allegedly acting upon.
The lawyers contend that by complying without transparency, the telecom firms became complicit in violating the rights of millions of subscribers.
Beyond the economic impact, the petition argues that the blackout severely undermined democratic participation by preventing citizens from sharing information, reporting irregularities, observing the electoral process, and engaging in peaceful civic discussion.
They say the timing of the shutdown during voting and tallying deepened public suspicion and eroded trust in institutions tasked with safeguarding free and fair elections.
The lawyers are now asking the High Court to declare the internet shutdown illegal, unconstitutional, and null and void, and to issue permanent orders barring the government and regulators from imposing future blackouts without strict adherence to the law.
They are also seeking compensation for the losses suffered by affected citizens and businesses, as well as a landmark judicial pronouncement on digital rights and state power in the internet age.
On Sunday , Mariam Wangadya the Uganda Human Rights Commission said the internet shut down would not rule out the action if it was justified by public interest.
“The losses are regrettable and if the suspension of the internet was informed by the public good, again let the public good prevail,” she said.
She, however, called on victims who suffered financial losses to seek legal compensation.
“But we cannot, individual business people who suffered and seek compensation, they can file claims with the challenges within the election period,” she added.
As Uganda’s economy and democracy become increasingly digital, the outcome of this case could set a defining precedent on whether access to the internet is treated as a privilege that can be switched off at will or a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
