Two lawyers sue Airtel, MTN-Uganda, UCC over internet shutdown during elections

KAMPALA. Two city lawyers have filed a case in the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala challenging the internet shutdown imposed during Uganda’s General Election in which the incumbent   President Museveni was declared by the Electoral Commission as the winner.
The country’s major telecommunication companies and the sector regulator have been named as respondents in the case the advocates have described as an unlawful disruption of communication services.
 
The two advocates, Michael Aboneka and Raymond Amumpaire, sued Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), MTN Uganda Limited, Airtel Uganda Limited and Tangerine Limited T/A Lyca mobile.
 
The applicants contend that the shutdown, enforced during and around polling days, violated constitutional protections and disrupted access to communication services nationwide.
 
According to court documents seen by this reporter, the applicants argue that the decision to restrict internet access was implemented without a clear legal basis and without public disclosure of the authority under which it was carried out. They maintain that the shutdown affected millions of users and interfered with access to information at a critical time.
 
“The respondents jointly and severally participated in the interruption of internet-based communication services without lawful authority,” the applicants state in their pleadings.
 
The suit challenges the legality of directives that led to the suspension of internet services, arguing that any limitation on fundamental rights must comply with constitutional requirements.
 The applicants assert that no formal legal instrument was publicly issued to justify the shutdown and that due process was not followed.
They further accuse the Uganda Communications Commission of failing in its statutory mandate as the regulator of the communications sector. According to the court documents, UCC either directed or permitted the shutdown without ensuring compliance with the Constitution and the Uganda Communications Act.
 
 “As the regulator, the Commission had a duty to safeguard the interests of consumers and ensure continuity of communication services,” the applicants argue.
 
MTN Uganda and Airtel Uganda are accused of implementing the shutdown despite the alleged absence of lawful directives. The applicants contend that while telecommunications companies may receive instructions from regulators or state agencies, they remain bound by constitutional obligations and contractual duties to subscribers.
In affidavits supporting the application, the advocates state that the shutdown had far-reaching consequences, including disruption of mobile money services, interference with online businesses, and limitations on the ability of journalists and citizens to communicate and access information during the election period.
 “The interruption affected economic activity, media operations, and personal communication across the country,” one of the affidavits reads.
  
The applicants are seeking several remedies from court, including declarations that the internet shutdown was unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution. They are also asking the court to issue orders restraining the respondents from imposing similar shutdowns in future without following the law, as well as costs of the suit. 
Uganda has experienced internet restrictions during previous election periods, often affecting access to social media platforms and other online services. In this case, however, the advocates argue that the shutdown went beyond permissible limitations and was imposed without transparency or accountability.
 
At the time of filing, none of the respondents had filed responses to the application. Court records indicate that the matter has been registered in the High Court Civil Division and is awaiting further directions, including issuance of summons and scheduling of hearings.
 
 The applicants say the suit seeks to clarify the legal framework governing internet shutdowns and the responsibilities of regulators and service providers when restricting access to communication services during election periods.

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *