Election-Weary Uganda Faces Questions About Internet Shutdowns
As Uganda emerges from a sweeping internet blackout that accompanied the 15 January elections, the question on many lips is whether the disruption achieved its stated aim or whether it backfired by eroding trust and complicating civic life. State officials argued that the shutdown was a precaution against disinformation and violence, but rights advocates, journalists, and ordinary citizens say it may have intensified suspicions and harmed democratic participation.
What the Shutdown Supposedly Aimed To Do
Authorities contended that cutting off or throttling access to social media and messaging platforms during the vote was necessary to prevent the spread of fake news, coordinated manipulation, and to safeguard polling processes. In environments with a history of political tension, leaders often justify such interventions as temporary, targeted, and proportionate measures aimed at preserving public order and the integrity of the electoral process.
The Human Costs Beyond Politics
Beyond the ballot box, the shutdown disrupted everyday life for students, small businesses, and families who rely on the internet for education, healthcare information, financial transactions, and remote work. In a country where mobile connectivity is deeply woven into daily routines, the blackout translated into real-world consequences: missed opportunities for timely medical advice, delayed business operations, and increased costs as people sought alternative connectivity solutions.
Disinformation vs. Public Trust
Proponents of the blackout say it protected citizens from dangerous rumors. Critics argue that it deprived people of reliable information channels, leaving a vacuum that rumors quickly filled. When official information becomes scarce, people turn to informal and sometimes unreliable sources, diminishing confidence in government communications and eroding trust between citizens and public institutions. The emotional and practical impact of prolonged uncertainty can be as influential as any political message, shaping perceptions of fairness in the electoral process.
Evidence and Accountability
Human rights lawyers and watchdog groups are scrutinizing the legality and proportionality of Uganda’s internet restrictions. Questions include whether proper risk assessments were conducted, whether safeguards to protect freedom of expression were considered, and what sunset clauses existed for the blackout. Legal challenges argue that broad or indefinite suspensions contravene constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.
Legal Perspectives and International Norms
Under international human rights law, freedom of expression and access to information are essential to a healthy democracy. Even during elections, states are expected to ensure reliable information for citizens while carefully calibrating any measures against the risk of harm. The Uganda case has drawn attention from regional bodies and human rights organizations that advocate for transparent decision-making, clear time limits, and robust oversight mechanisms when restrictions are deemed necessary.
What Comes Next: Rebuilding Trust and Information Systems
With the blackout over, several steps could help repair trust and resilience in Uganda’s information ecosystem. Authorities might publish full explanations of the decision, including data on the observed risks and the criteria used to lift the restrictions. Civil society groups advocate for investing in digital literacy campaigns, credible state information portals, and rapid response services that can debunk misinformation without denying access. Stronger regulatory frameworks for social media platforms and timely, accurate government communications could reduce the perceived need for broad shutdowns in future elections.
Implications for Citizens and the Media
For the public, the shutdown underscored the fragility of information ecosystems in volatile political times. Journalists reported challenges in reporting from the ground, while citizen reporters and local communities faced gaps in coverage. The episode may push both the media and policymakers toward more transparent, accountable practices that protect rights while safeguarding public safety.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Digital Governance
Uganda’s election-related internet restrictions illustrate a enduring dilemma: how to balance the need to prevent harmful misinformation with the equally important obligation to preserve freedom of expression and access to information. As the country processes the aftermath, the lessons point toward greater transparency, stronger digital literacy, and more targeted, temporary measures that are clearly defined and democratically overseen.
