KAMPALA 27 JUNE 2025: Uganda’s media sector faces mounting constraints from restrictive laws, expansive regulatory controls and financial pressure -according to a new report by the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME). The report highlights the restrictive laws, political and economic influence, and other intersecting pressures, which have thrown Uganda’s media sector into a state of vulnerability.
The report ‘Vulnerable Media, Struggling Democracy’ examines legal developments, statutory decisions and court rulings from 2019 to 2024. It documents how these forces, set against a shifting political and governance backdrop, are narrowing space for independent reporting and limiting access to information.
The study is part of ACME’s ongoing work to expand knowledge on the intersections between media, law and public life in Uganda. The report further suggests that these pressures affect not only media freedom, but also broader democratic participation. It points out that limitations on journalistic independence can erode public trust, restrict access to diverse viewpoints, and hinder citizens’ ability to engage meaningfully in political and social debate.
Regulation as restriction:
According to the report, Uganda’s media laws are increasingly applied in ways that restrict, rather than facilitate, the free flow of information. While the 1995 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, the study documents how these protections are regularly curtailed through laws that are either vaguely worded or broadly interpreted.
Several statutory instruments are identified as central to this trend. These include the Penal Code Act, the Computer Misuse Act (amended in 2022), the Uganda Communications Act, and the Press and Journalist Act. The report highlights how provisions within these laws are regularly used to criminalise online speech, limit editorial content, and impose sanctions on journalists and media houses.
The report also points to increased scrutiny of digital spaces. It finds that journalists and commentators operating online face heightened risks, including arrest and prosecution under laws targeting “offensive communication” or “false” information. These trends have contributed to a narrowing of space for critical digital expression.
Political and economic influence:
In addition to the legal framework, the report outlines how political conditions affect the media’s ability to function independently. It describes the current governance model as one in which executive authority is highly centralised, with diminished parliamentary oversight and growing involvement of security and intelligence agencies in non-security affairs. This political configuration has enabled state actors to exert considerable influence over media content and coverage.
Economic pressure, the report argues, is a further tool used to shape media narratives. It documents how financial dependence on state-linked advertising, combined with threats of licence revocation or selective enforcement of tax laws, can create incentives for media outlets to avoid publishing content deemed critical of the government. The report suggests that such financial vulnerability contributes to self-censorship, especially among smaller or independent media organisations with limited revenue streams.
Defamation law raises stakes:
Defamation law is another area identified in the report as contributing to a constrained media space. The study notes that high-profile cases brought by public officials — including senior politicians, ministers, and civil servants — have increasingly relied on defamation claims to challenge media reporting. In several of these cases, courts have awarded substantial damages, which the report finds can pose an existential threat to media outlets already operating under financial strain.
The report raises concerns about the absence of clear legal standards on issues such as proportionality of damages and public interest defences. It suggests that the current legal framework may be enabling powerful individuals to use the courts to suppress critical commentary, rather than to seek redress for legitimate reputational harm. This pattern has reinforced a legal environment in which the risk of litigation deters investigative reporting and limits open public discussion.
Historical continuities and emerging trends:
The study situates these developments within a broader historical context. It notes that many of Uganda’s media laws, including some provisions in the Penal Code, originate from colonial-era legislation. These older legal frameworks, the report argues, continue to influence contemporary regulatory approaches, especially those that prioritise control over openness.
In addition to legal provisions, the report identifies structural and institutional patterns that affect how media regulation is applied. It describes how the mandates and leadership of regulatory bodies can influence their approach to enforcement, particularly in politically sensitive periods. The study also observes a growing reliance on administrative directives and informal orders, rather than formal court rulings, to manage media behaviour.
Intersecting pressures on media in Uganda:
The report underscores the cumulative effect of these trends. It finds that the combined influence of law, politics, and economics is reshaping how journalism is practiced in Uganda. It concludes that media operations – from editorial decision-making to newsroom sustainability – are increasingly influenced by external constraints that go beyond editorial considerations.
Follow the link below to read the ACME report;
