Navigating a restrictive access to information infrastructure in Uganda through the use of social media

Author: Kansiime Mukama Taremwa
LLM Candidate, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria

From late February into March 2024, a hashtag ran on X (formerly Twitter) under the designation #UgandaParliamentaryExhibition.  According to the protagonists behind this hashtag, the purpose of this move was to cast light on the outrageous spending within Uganda’s parliament.

The internet is considered to be the most disruptive piece of technology that enables the receipt and dissemination of information. Uganda is home to 2.6 million social media users. Few people can doubt the power of the internet in general and social media specifically, in stimulating democratic culture. Even some of the critics of digitisation accept that digital technologies lower the costs of access to information. The use of social media to organise and mobilise persons for action came to the fore in the early 2010s in what was known as the Arab Spring; a series of protests that led to the ousting of dictatorial governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. It was known for the youthful demonstrators that staged street protests and used social media to coordinate, raise awareness of the political issues, and record the events on the ground. The results of the Arab Spring are that dictatorships that had managed to stifle access to information and free flow of ideas for many years were toppled in part, due to the mobilisational capacities of social media.

The power of social media activism also played a leading role in what was known as the #Metoo movement. On 15 October 2017, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted a request to her followers: ‘If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.’ It was reported that 24 hours after that tweet, #MeToo had already been used 12 million times on Facebook. That hashtag was conceived in the wake of accusations made against film mogul Harvey Weinstein and it was crafted to focus the emphasis on the victim’s story rather than the perpetrator’s reputation. Social media broke the barriers of traditional media, and its users could not be bogged down by the different maneuvers of the powerful, in gate-keeping information concerning such important social issues.

The role played by the internet, and social media in particular, in challenging information gatekeeping cannot be overemphasised. Social media can play a powerful role in allowing inexpensive access to information, increasing transparency over the conduct of those in power, and facilitating active citizen participation in building democratic societies. Social media as part of the internet infrastructure significantly enhances the ability of people to access information and certainly enhances pluralism in reporting.

Social media activism helps to demystify powerful people and their obsession with gatekeeping information. The AFIC findings demonstrate a deep-seated bureaucracy around traditional approaches to accessing information. It seems that refusal to grant access is more prevalent if it touches upon information that concerns the wealth of public officials, agreements relating to natural resource exploitation such as production-sharing agreements in the case of oil or information regarding proceedings of cabinet meetings (including committees) as enshrined under sections 2 & 5 of the Access to Information Act. The adamancy on the side of the state is heavily linked to a culture of impunity in Uganda entrenched in the perceptions that public officials are ‘big people’ who are unbothered by mundane responsibilities like accountability to citizens.

Consequently, it was relieving that a group of social media activists were going to do an online exhibition of the financial activities and other issues at the Ugandan parliament. Led by Agather Atuhaire and Dr Spire Ssentongo, the team began to exhibit troubling stories of the things that are happening within the precincts of parliamentary power. The Speaker and several of her staff were accused of breaching parliamentary rules by using private bank accounts to withdraw enormous amounts of money. It was alleged that the Speaker oversaw the distribution of more than 1.7 billion Uganda shillings in 2022 as “service awards” for parliamentary commissioners, who oversee spending and salaries in Parliament.

The exhibition exposed information that would probably never have come to light through the traditional mechanisms of accessing information from the state. It has highlighted that several civil servants are interested in getting information to the public but are also probably impeded by bureaucratic hoops and the risk of losing their jobs as the source of livelihoods. Social media activism has built up pressure and has heightened alert levels within the corridors of power that someone is watching their moves and that sooner or later, these can come to public light. It has shown that there is a portion of young adults in Uganda who are popularising information democratisation.

They have a duty to ensure that Ugandans are aware of what is going on in their nation to facilitate informed decision-making and enhance participation in political and socio-economic development. It demonstrated that social media activism eliminates the aura of power that seems to surround public servants at the rank of the Speaker and associated offices. Social media seems to clothe many citizens with the courage to discuss the issues affecting them, without the imminent danger of reprisals. This is at the heart of international and regional human rights law instruments. Principle 40 of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa provides that the right to access and disseminate information through the media is enhanced by the ability to interact anonymously and using pseudonyms. This upsets the traditional means of requesting information from information holders which may otherwise expose their personal information. It may also pose a risk to their freedom, especially in autocratic governments. This has the potential to improve the culture of information seeking from public and private entities by mitigating the fear associated with being discovered by the state.

Information holders may be reluctant to relinquish information, especially to persons identifying under pseudonyms. However, the emergent legal framework as exemplified under section 25 of the Model Law on Access to Information for Africa requires that such refusals should be subjected to the public interest override. The information requests made by persons identifying under pseudonyms should be weighed against the potential harm.  The latter is unlikely to outweigh the public interest in releasing the information. This is because the information being requested should probably have already been released to the public as part of proactive disclosure obligations. It is not relevant whether the information is in the hands of an ascertainable person, but rather, if it is in the interests of the wider public that the said information is released.

Social media ought to also be perceived as a complementary option to traditional means of media rather than an alienating replacement.  The predictability of ethical and journalistic standards within traditional media makes it necessary to maintain a functional relationship. Traditional journalists should maintain their ability to fact-check information availed by any public or private entities without falling into the trap of sensationalism which is what social media activism is associated with by some people.

The dangers associated with perpetuating disinformation and misinformation are not ignored. However, the legal infrastructure at the domestic, regional, and international levels has guided that restrictions can be applied in accordance with the framework of justifiable limitations. The Supreme Court of Uganda in Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mwenda v The Attorney General observed that protection of access to information should be seen as the general rule and not the exception. It should only be restricted subject to the exemptions provided by law and ultimately subject to the public interest overrides. In Issa Konate v Burkina Faso, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights observed that criminal sanctions should not be used by the state to curb misinformation and disinformation. Civil sanctions should be preferred. It should be noted that the right to access information while a separate and distinct right, it also is an intrinsic component of the right to freedom of expression.

While the discussion in the two cases focuses on access to information, it is only useful if this information can then be shared with the public. The appropriate response of the state should not be silence or maligning the exhibitors, but responding to allegations from social media, with the truth. Shyllon Ololade has argued that the overarching aim of access to information infrastructure is to make proactive disclosure the norm, and secrecy, the exception. The state also can demonstrate that the activists are telling incredulous stories and countering the same with the truth.

While it may indeed be too early to tell the overall effect of the #UgandaParliamentaryExhibition activism on X, it cannot be denied that it has shaken the foundations of information gatekeeping in Uganda. Consequently, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament demanded that the Speaker addresses the allegations coming from this online activism thus getting the conversation off the streets of social media into the arena of parliament. The activism has renewed an understanding that no one should be above reproach. In July 2024, protests calling for the resignation of the Speaker were staged by members of the public as a result of the exhibition on X and the conversations that have ensued as a result.

It remains to be seen if the momentum will be sustained especially as the biggest challenge with social media activism seems to be that people move on to the next trending topic. It can however not be denied that this exhibition has demonstrated that the use of the internet stands as a beacon of hope in advancing the frontiers of progress through access to information.

About the Author:

Kansiime Mukama Taremwa is an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda and practices law with Signum Advocates where he has participated in cases on freedom of association, freedom of expression and access to information litigated before the Constitutional Court of Uganda. He is also a Teaching-Assistant with the International University of East Africa, in Uganda where he teaches Human Rights and Constitutional Law. He is currently completing his Master of Laws in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa at the University of Pretoria.