Overview: Why Uganda shut down the internet
As Uganda concluded its 15 January election, the government cited the need to prevent disinformation and safeguard the electoral process. Internet shutdowns, throttling, and social media blocks are instruments governments sometimes wield to restrict online information during sensitive periods. Proponents say these measures prevent manipulation, while critics warn they undermine rights and breathe skepticism into the political process.
What happened during and after the election
Uganda’s authorities restricted access to social media platforms and some messaging services at various points around the vote. The aim, directly stated by officials, was to curb misinformation, protect citizens, and ensure orderly conduct. In practice, the shutdown disrupted everyday communications, affected businesses, and limited journalists’ ability to verify claims in real time. When the restrictions lifted after the election, many citizens and observers scrutinized the period of control and questioned whether the measures achieved their stated goals.
The argument for shutdowns: disinformation control and stability
Supporters of internet restrictions argue that elections are vulnerable to manipulation via online misinformation, coordinated inauthentic behavior, and rapid rumor propagation. By slowing or blocking certain information channels, authorities claim they reduce the risk of unrest, violence, or misinterpretation of provisional results. In the Ugandan context, officials have framed the shutdown as a short-term tool to protect voters and maintain public order during a highly charged political moment.
The counterarguments: rights, transparency, and trust
Critics contend that internet shutdowns infringe fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and access to information. They argue such blocks disproportionately affect everyday citizens, small businesses, and civil society groups that rely on online platforms to communicate, organize, and monitor developments. Moreover, shutting down the internet can undermine trust in election outcomes, with residents interpreting the measures as a signal that the process cannot be trusted to be free or fair. Human rights lawyers and regional observers note that transparency and competitive media coverage are essential for legitimate electoral processes, and blanket bans often erode those foundations.
Human rights lawyers take legal action
As Uganda emerges from the shutdown, human rights lawyers have begun challenging the measures in court and through regional bodies. They argue that blanket internet restrictions are overbroad, lack adequate justification, and fail to meet international standards for necessity and proportionality. Legal actions seek not only to challenge the legality of the suspensions but also to establish clearer guidelines for any future use, ensuring safeguards for freedom of expression and access to information while addressing national security concerns.
Impacts on trust, civic participation, and the information ecosystem
Beyond legal battles, the shutdown appears to have left a lasting imprint on public trust. Citizens report greater skepticism toward official communications, and many turned to alternate channels or offline networks to verify information. Some communities noted a chilling effect, dampening political participation for fear of repercussions. NGOs and media groups warn that the episode risks normalizing information controls, which could affect voter engagement in future elections.
Regional and international responses
The African and international human rights communities have closely watched Uganda’s approach, underscoring calls for proportionate, targeted measures rather than broad blockages. The debates reflect a broader global question: how to balance the imperative to prevent disinformation with protecting civil liberties and maintaining public trust in democratic processes.
What happens next
Key questions remain: Will Uganda refine its framework to meet international human rights standards while addressing disinformation concerns? Can the judiciary provide robust checks that prevent overreach during elections? And how will citizens and civil society adapt to a landscape where information flows are intermittently constrained but accountability remains essential for legitimacy?
Conclusion
The Ugandan experience suggests that attempts to suppress online information during elections can backfire by eroding trust and triggering legal challenges. Protecting the integrity of elections requires transparent, rights-respecting strategies that address misinformation without silencing citizens’ voices.
