Uganda Country Focus Report

Uganda’s civic space is defined by a complex interplay of political constraints, regulatory clawbacks of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms, and infrastructural challenges. The 1995 Constitution, under Article 29, guarantees the freedoms of speech and expression, assembly, demonstration, association, thought, conscience, and belief — rights that form the backbone of civil society’s work. However, these rights are not absolute. Under Article 43, fundamental freedoms can be limited by law if exercised in a way that is contrary to public interest or the rights of others in a free and democratic society, although this cannot be invoked to justify political persecution or detention without trial. Yet Uganda’s political environment remains restrictive.

The dominance of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), in power since 1986, has led to a gradual narrowing of democratic space as the political elite increasingly prioritise regime security over actualising the aspirations of the 1995 constitution. Despite the several court rulings requiring that any rights limitation must be necessary, proportionate, and demonstrably justifiable, civil society’s ability to operate freely is increasingly constrained by surveillance, censorship, legal repression, and regulatory barriers as the state moves to quell civil and political dissent to its long-term rule.

Elections are regularly held, but they are marred by allegations of violence, voter intimidation, media censorship, and judicial bias. Institutions meant to guarantee democratic accountability, such as parliament, the judiciary, and the Electoral Commission, have been weakened by executive influence. Opposition actors, critical media, and activist groups are regularly surveilled, harassed, or criminalised under vague laws like the Public Order Management Act and the Computer Misuse Act.

As such, civic actors operate in a polarised environment shaped by suspicion, selective enforcement of the law, and shrinking access to funding. State agencies frequently view civil society through a national security lens, particularly in relation to elections, human rights advocacy, and international donor support. At the same time, institutional barriers like complex compliance procedures, regional disparities, and insufficient protection of migrant communities limit civic engagement for grassroots groups, indigenous communities, and special interest groups.

This assessment explores how these factors affect the operational freedom of civil society online. It draws on expert opinions, field interviews, and global indexes such as Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net, and recent case law to unpack how policy and practice interact to shape the reality of civic expression, participation, and activism in the year 2024.