Uganda's comprehensive personal-data regime is the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 (Chapter 97), which binds any person, institution or public body that collects, processes, holds or uses personal data within Uganda, or outside Uganda in relation to a Ugandan citizen's data.
The Act requires a lawful basis, most often the data subject's prior consent, before personal data is collected or processed; bars collection or processing of a child's data without a parent's or guardian's consent and of specially protected categories (religious or philosophical belief, political opinion, sexual life, financial information, and health status) outside narrow exceptions, without naming biometric or genetic data as a special category; gives a data subject rights of information, access, correction, objection (including to direct marketing) and against a purely automated decision; requires notice to the National Information Technology Authority of an unauthorised access to or acquisition of personal data, with the Authority deciding whether the affected data subject must also be told and the Act setting no fixed deadline for that second notice; and requires either an adequacy-equivalent destination or the data subject's consent, rather than prior government authorisation, before personal data is processed or stored outside Uganda.
A data subject harmed by a contravention may sue for compensation in court, and unlawfully obtaining, disclosing, destroying, altering or selling personal data is a criminal offence carrying a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both.
Section 23(1) requires a data collector, processor or controller that believes a data subject's personal data has been accessed or acquired by an unauthorised person to notify the Authority immediately, in the prescribed manner, of the access or acquisition and the remedial action taken; the Act states no numbered grace period, the clock is 'immediately' from the point the collector, processor or controller believes the breach occurred.
Section 23(2) leaves the decision on whether the data subject must also be told to the Authority rather than to the data collector, processor or controller, and the Act sets no independent deadline for that data-subject notice; it runs from the Authority's own determination, not from the breach.
Where the Authority does direct notice to the data subject, section 23(3) requires it by registered mail to their last known address, electronic mail to their last known address, a prominent position on the responsible party's website, or publication in the mass media, and section 23(4) requires it to carry sufficient information for the data subject to take protective measures.
Section 23(5) lets the Authority direct the responsible party to publicise the breach where the Authority has grounds to believe publicity would protect an affected data subject.
Data Protection and Privacy Act 2019 (Chapter 97), ss. 1-7, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-22, 29-30 (principles, lawful basis, security and registration)official Act text as published by the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ULII), preserved in an Internet Archive capture of the ULII page
The Act applies to a person, institution or public body collecting, processing, holding or using personal data within Uganda, and to a person outside Uganda doing the same in relation to a Ugandan citizen's data (s. 1).
It establishes a personal data protection office within the National Information Technology Authority - Uganda (the Authority) to enforce the accountability, fairness, lawfulness, adequacy, quality, transparency and security principles of s. 3, and requires every institution to designate its own data protection officer (s. 6).
A person must not collect or process personal data without the data subject's prior consent, unless a public duty, national security, an offence-related purpose, a contract with the data subject, a medical purpose or another legal obligation applies, and processing must stop if the data subject objects outside those grounds (s. 7).
Personal data must be collected directly from the data subject unless a listed exception applies, such as the data already being in a public record or made public by the data subject, and it must be collected only for a specific, explicitly defined lawful purpose related to the collector's functions (ss. 11-12).
Further processing of data already held must stay compatible with the purpose it was collected for, unless the data subject consents, the data is public, or a listed law-enforcement, national-security, public-health or research ground applies (s. 17).
A data controller must process no more than the necessary or relevant data, keep it complete, accurate, up to date and not misleading, retain it no longer than necessary unless a listed ground extends retention, and destroy or de-identify it at the expiry of the retention period in a manner that prevents reconstruction (ss. 14-15, 18).
A data controller, collector or processor must secure personal data with appropriate technical and organisational measures against loss, damage, unauthorised destruction and unlawful access, identifying foreseeable risks, maintaining safeguards against them, verifying they work and updating them, and observing generally accepted security practices (s. 20); a data controller may not let a data processor handle personal data unless the processor meets those same security measures, and the processing contract between them must require it (s. 21), while an operator or other person processing on a controller's behalf must treat the data as confidential and not disclose it except where the law requires or the duty calls for it (s. 22).
The Authority keeps a data protection register in which every person, institution or public body collecting or processing personal data must register, and makes that register available for public inspection (ss. 29-30).
Section 19 requires a data processor or data controller based in Uganda that processes or stores personal data outside Uganda to ensure either that the destination country has measures protecting personal data at least equivalent to this Act's, or that the data subject has consented to the transfer.
The Act sets no prior government-authorisation requirement and names no localisation duty; the section's two grounds, an adequacy-equivalent destination or consent, are the only conditions it states for a transfer outside Uganda.
Section 27 lets a data subject require in writing that a data controller not base a decision significantly affecting them solely on the processing of their personal data by automatic means.
Where a controller does base such a decision solely on automated processing, it must tell the data subject that fact as soon as reasonably practicable, and the data subject can require reconsideration within twenty-one days, with the controller answering in writing within a further twenty-one days of that request. The section does not apply to a decision made in considering, entering into or performing a contract with the data subject, or for a purpose a law authorises or requires.
Section 13 requires a person collecting personal data to inform the data subject, before or as soon as practicable after collection, of the nature and category of the data, the collector's name and address, the purpose, whether supplying the data is discretionary or mandatory, the consequences of not providing it, the authorised or legal requirement for collecting it, the recipients, the existence of the rights of access and rectification, and the retention period, subject to law-enforcement, national-security and revenue-collection exceptions.
Section 16 gives a data subject the right to have a data controller correct or delete personal data that is inaccurate, irrelevant, excessive, out of date, incomplete, misleading or unlawfully obtained, or destroy a record the controller no longer has authority to retain, with the controller telling the data subject the outcome and notifying every person the data was disclosed to of a correction made.
Section 24 gives a data subject who proves their identity the right to confirmation of whether a controller holds their personal data, a description of it, and the identity of any third party with access to it, to be answered within thirty days subject to a third party's own privacy.
Section 25 lets a data subject require a controller or processor in writing to stop processing that causes or is likely to cause them unwarranted substantial damage or distress, other than processing under section 7(2), with the controller answering within fourteen days and the Authority able to order compliance within seven.
Section 26 lets a data subject require a controller in writing to stop processing their data for direct marketing, again with a fourteen-day answer and an Authority order available. Section 28 lets the Authority, on a data subject's complaint that their data is inaccurate, order a controller to rectify, update, block, erase or destroy it, with the controller then notifying every third party the data was previously disclosed to.
Section 31 lets a data subject or any other person complain to the Authority in the prescribed manner that a data collector, processor or controller is infringing their rights or violating the Act, and lets a data collector, processor or controller itself complain to the Authority in writing about a violation or non-compliance.
Section 32 requires the Authority to investigate every complaint and lets it direct a data collector, processor or controller to remedy a breach or take other action to restore the integrity of the data or the data subject's rights.
Section 33 gives a data subject who suffers damage or distress through a contravention of the Act a right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for compensation from the data collector, processor or controller responsible, a private right of action, subject to the defence that the person took reasonable care to comply. Section 34 lets a person aggrieved by an Authority decision appeal to the Minister within thirty days, with a copy of the appeal going to the Authority.
Sections 35 to 37 make it an offence to unlawfully obtain, disclose or procure the disclosure of personal data, to unlawfully destroy, delete, mislead, conceal or alter it, or to sell or offer to sell it, each punishable on conviction by a fine of two hundred and forty to two hundred and forty five currency points (twenty thousand Uganda shillings per currency point) or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both.
Section 38 extends those offences to a corporation and to any officer who knowingly and wilfully authorises or permits the contravention, and lets a court additionally fine a convicted corporation up to two percent of its annual gross turnover, having regard to the gravity and impact of the offence.
Section 8 bars a person from collecting or processing a child's personal data unless it is carried out with the prior consent of the child's parent, guardian or another person with authority to decide for the child, or is necessary to comply with the law, or is for research or statistical purposes.
Section 9(1) bars a person from collecting or processing personal data relating to an individual's religious or philosophical beliefs, political opinion, sexual life, financial information, or health status or medical records, and section 9(2) exempts information collected under the Uganda Bureau of Statistics Act from that bar.
Section 9(3) permits collection or processing of that special personal data only where it is exercised or performed under a right or obligation a law imposes on an employer, where the data subject gives it freely and with consent, or where a non-profit political, philosophical, religious or trade union body collects or processes it for its own legitimate activities about its own members or regular contacts and does not disclose it to a third party without the data subject's consent.
The enumerated special-category list does not name biometric or genetic data, so a biometric identifier is not treated as special personal data under this Act.
Scraping law2 instruments, 1 in force, 1 no longer in force
Research summary (207 words)
Uganda has no scraping-specific statute, so general law governs each dimension separately.
The Computer Misuse Act, 2011 criminalised unauthorised access to a computer, but Uganda's Constitutional Court permanently enjoined enforcement of that provision on , both because the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 that produced its current wording was passed without the constitutionally required parliamentary quorum and because the provision itself was held vague and overbroad, so no operative unauthorised-access offence currently exists on the point.
No reported Ugandan case addresses the enforceability of a browsewrap or clickwrap terms-of-service against a scraper, and no Ugandan statute or case establishes a scraping-specific unfair-competition, misappropriation or trespass doctrine, assigns legal weight to a robots.txt directive, or imposes an AI-training-specific rule.
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 permits fair use for private study, quotation compatible with fair practice, and teaching, but Uganda has no text-and-data-mining exception and no sui generis database right.
The Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 applies to personal data without a general carve-out for information that is publicly accessible, so scraping personal data from a public Ugandan website remains subject to the Act's consent and purpose-limitation duties, narrowed only where a public record or the data subject's own act made the data public.
No longer in force.since struck down Struck down by a court. The page is kept as a record.
Binds public and private bodies.
What this law does
As originally enacted, section 12 (renumbered section 11 by the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022) made it an offence to access or intercept another person's program, data or information without authorisation, and the 2022 amendment added voice or video recording of another person and sharing information about another person without authorisation to the same offence, carrying a fine of up to 750 currency points (UGX 15,000,000) or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both.
On , in a consolidated ruling on three petitions filed in 2022, Uganda's Constitutional Court held that the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 was passed without the quorum of one-third of all members required by the Rules of Procedure of Parliament and Articles 88 and 89 of the Constitution, and separately found section 11, along with sections 23 and 26 to 29, vague, overbroad and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and access to information.
The court declared the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022 null and void and issued a permanent injunction restraining its enforcement of section 11, so no unauthorised-access offence under this Act currently binds a person accessing a computer system in Uganda.
Section 14 permits the fair use of a protected work, without the copyright owner's consent, for private personal use, for a quotation from a published work (including a newspaper or periodical press summary) that is compatible with fair practice and acknowledges its source, for teaching purposes to the extent justified by way of illustration, for reproduction or communication of a work that can be seen or heard to the extent justified for the purpose when reporting on current events, and, since the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Act, 2026, for use of a work in an online learning environment by an education institution, library, archive or museum.
Section 5 excludes ideas, concepts, procedures and methods from copyright protection outright, and section 6 excludes an enactment, a court decision, a government inquiry report, and the news of the day (reports of fresh events or current information by the media, whether published in written form, broadcast, on the internet, or by any other means) from copyright protection, holding the Government as trustee of those works for the public benefit.
The Act contains no text-and-data-mining exception and confers no sui generis database right; a compilation is protected, if at all, only as an ordinary literary work under section 4, and Uganda's related (neighbouring) rights cover only performances, sound recordings, broadcasts and programme-carrying signals.
Unauthorised publication, distribution, reproduction, public performance, broadcast, or communication of a protected work to the public is an offence under section 46(1), which since carries a fine of up to 2,500 currency points (UGX 50,000,000) or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both.
Apart from the payment-services rules set out at the end of this summary, Uganda has no enacted statute or regulation that sets a security requirement a product or connected device must meet before or while it is on the market, imposes a vulnerability-handling or coordinated-disclosure duty, creates a mandatory duty to report an exploited vulnerability or a security incident to an authority or to users, or states a general reasonable-security baseline reaching a private business simply because it holds data.
The National Information Technology Authority, Uganda Act, 2009 (Act No. 4 of 2009) establishes NITA-U with functions that touch information security, but every function reaching a private actor is either advisory to Government or a coordination mandate rather than an enforceable duty: section 5(b) tasks the Authority only to identify and advise Government on information technology security, section 5(c) to co-ordinate, supervise and monitor the utilisation of information technology in the public and private sectors, and section 5(d) to regulate and enforce standards for information technology hardware and software equipment procurement expressly in Government Ministries, departments, agencies and parastatals, never in a private business.
Section 5(f) gives the Authority the broader, unqualified power to set, monitor and regulate standards for information technology planning, risk management, data protection, security and contingency planning, but no regulation exercising that power against a private manufacturer or software distributor was found; the one instrument NITA-U points to as its exercise of this mandate, the National Information Security Framework, binds Government institutions only.
The updated National Information Security Framework (NISF) 2026, launched by the Minister of ICT and National Guidance on , updates a 2014 original that NITA-U developed under the National Information Security Strategy and that was endorsed through Presidential Security Directive No. 1 of 2014, an executive directive rather than legislation or a gazetted statutory instrument.
At its 2026 launch the Minister called on Ministries, Departments and Agencies to implement the Framework and merely urged private sector organisations operating critical infrastructure, naming banking, telecommunications, energy, transport and health, to collaborate voluntarily with Government; NITA-U's own Executive Director described its reach as coordinating implementation, monitoring compliance and providing technical support across Government, not as creating a duty a private operator must comply with.
Because the Framework binds Government institutions by executive directive and asks a critical-infrastructure operator only to volunteer, it is recorded here as background rather than filed as an instrument.
The National Information Technology Authority, Uganda (Certification of Providers of Information Technology Products and Services) Regulations, 2016 (SI No. 69 of 2016), as amended by the National Information Technology Authority, Uganda (Certification of Providers of Information Technology Products and Services) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018, require a person seeking to provide information technology products or services in Uganda to hold a NITA-U certificate, tiered by the applicant's annual gross revenue.
Its criteria are a business and tax registration check, organisational and financial stability, staffing and premises adequate to the proposed scope, a past-performance record, and, at the highest revenue tier only, a duty to comply with applicable standards relating to the provision of information technology products or services; that is a market-access professional-licensing duty for an IT contractor generally, not a stated security-design, vulnerability-handling or incident-reporting requirement, so it is named here rather than filed as a security-topic instrument, the same treatment this profile gives Singapore's licensable-cybersecurity-service licence under Part 5 of its Cybersecurity Act.
Uganda's National Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT.UG/CC), which NITA-U operates, publishes cyber threat advisories and offers a channel to voluntarily report an incident; neither its published pages nor the Computer Misuse Act name any statute or regulation that makes reporting to it mandatory for a private operator, so no vulnerability or incident-reporting duty is filed here either.
The Electronic Transactions Act, Cap 99 (commenced ) regulates electronic communications, transactions and e-Government services; the only security-related duty it places on a private seller is a consumer-protection disclosure at section 23, requiring the seller to state its security procedures and privacy policy in respect of payment, payment information and personal information to the consumer, a transparency duty rather than a substantive security-design or incident-reporting requirement, so it stays outside this topic.
The Computer Misuse Act, 2011 (Act No. 2 of 2011, Cap 96 in the 2023 Revised Edition, as amended by Act No. 24 of 2022 and Act No. 17 of 2023) criminalises unauthorised access, interference with data or a program, and denial of service, with an enhanced penalty of imprisonment for life where the offence targets a protected computer, one the offender knows or ought reasonably to have known is used in connection with Uganda's security, defence or international relations, a confidential criminal-law-enforcement source, or services directly related to communications infrastructure, banking and financial services, public utilities or public key infrastructure.
Every one of these duties binds the offender who attacks a system, not the entity that operates or manufactures it, so the Act stays with the scraping topic, where it is already filed against section 12's unauthorised-access offence, and is not repeated here.
The Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019, Part IV, sections 20 to 23, requires a data controller, data collector or data processor to secure the integrity of personal data through appropriate technical and organisational measures, extends that duty to a data processor acting for a controller, and requires notification of the Authority on discovering unauthorised access to personal data; because this is the comprehensive data-protection regime's own security-of-processing and breach-notification article, the same architecture as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 32, it stays this jurisdiction's privacy-topic finding and is not filed a second time here.
Bank of Uganda supervises licensed banks and payment system operators and providers under its own statutory mandate, and its rules for those institutions follow. Regulation 22(4) of the National Payment Systems Regulations, 2021 requires an electronic money issuer to notify the Bank of Uganda in writing within twenty-four hours of suspected or confirmed fraud, security breaches or a material service interruption.
Regulation 32 of the National Payment Systems Regulations, 2021 requires every licensee to put in place a risk management framework for its payment system services.
The Bank of Uganda Cyber and Technology Risk Management Guidelines, 2024, in force on for institutions supervised under the Financial Institutions Act, 2004 and the Microfinance Deposit Taking Institution Act, 2003, state that a supervised institution should forward to the Bank within 24 hours a cyber and technology incident with a significant adverse impact on its services.
Regulation 32 requires a licensee to put in place a risk management framework with measures to mitigate the risks that arise in the operation and provision of payment system services. Regulation 32 also requires a licensee to comply with the risk management requirements, including technical standards, that the Bank of Uganda or another competent authority issues through guidelines or directives.
Regulation 22(4) requires an electronic money issuer to notify the Bank of Uganda in writing no later than twenty-four hours from the occurrence of suspected or confirmed fraud relating to the electronic money service, security breaches, material service interruption or other significant issues that may affect its safety and efficiency. The same paragraph requires notice within the same period of a loss of confidential data.
Regulation 22(8) makes a licensee that fails to comply with regulation 22 without reasonable cause liable to a civil penalty of two hundred currency points per day of default.
Uganda has no press-publisher neighbouring right, no mandatory platform-to-publisher bargaining code, no recognised hot-news misappropriation doctrine distinct from ordinary copyright law, and no located statute or case law addressing hyperlinking or framing liability specifically; each of those dimensions is a sourced absence rather than an unresolved question.
The relevant instrument is the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act (Chapter 222 of the 2023 Revised Edition, first enacted as Act No. 19 of 2006), which excludes the news of the day and mere facts from copyright protection outright, holding the Government as trustee of those works for the public benefit, and separately lets a person quote a published work, including a newspaper or periodical in the form of a press summary, without infringing copyright, provided the quotation is compatible with fair practice, no more extensive than its purpose justifies, and credits its source.
The Act predates the concept of a machine-readable text-and-data-mining reservation entirely, so no opt-out mechanism of that kind exists either.
Section 6(1)(d) excludes the news of the day, meaning reports of fresh events or current information by the media whether published in written form, broadcast, on the internet, or by any other means, from copyright protection outright, and section 6(2) makes the Government trustee of the excluded works for the public benefit: a bare news report is never a protected work under Ugandan law, whichever outlet reports it first.
Section 14(1)(b) separately lets any person, without the copyright owner's consent, quote a published work, including a quotation from a newspaper or periodical in the form of a press summary, where the quotation is compatible with fair practice, its extent does not exceed what is justified for the purpose of the work using it, and the source is acknowledged.
Neither provision is capped at a headline-length or short-extract threshold beyond fair practice and the quoting work's own purpose, and whether either reaches a systematic aggregator's reproduction of headlines and snippets, as opposed to a traditional press summary, has not been tested in a reported Ugandan decision.
Uganda has no separate press-publisher neighbouring right, no compelled platform-to-publisher bargaining regime, no recognised hot-news or misappropriation doctrine distinct from ordinary copyright and unfair-competition law, and no located case law on hyperlinking or framed display.
These areas of law were researched here and no instrument was recorded. Each finding says what the research checked, as of the date under it. It describes our search, not a guarantee that no such law exists.
AI law
Uganda has no AI-specific statute, bill, or regulation imposing an AI-transparency, risk-management, training-data, prohibited-practice, governance, or sector-specific AI duty.
The Electronic Transactions Act, 2011 (Chapter 99) defines an electronic agent as a computer program used independently to initiate an action or respond to a data message in an automated transaction, and lets a contract be formed where such an agent performs an act required by law to form it, but the Act predates AI regulation, contains no reference to artificial intelligence, and its attribution rule addresses the electronic manner of a transaction rather than the fact that a system uses AI.
The Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 and the Computer Misuse Act, 2011 likewise contain no AI-tailored disclosure, labelling, or oversight duty. As of March 2025, the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance had publicly said it was still choosing between a formal AI policy and a sector-driven approach and had not tabled a bill in Parliament; no official AI policy, strategy, or bill had been published by .
As of .
Age gating law
Uganda has no adult-content age-verification law, social-media minor-access restriction, app-store age-verification requirement, or age-appropriate design code.
The Children Act (Cap. 59, as amended by the Children (Amendment) Act, 2016) defines child pornography and, at section 8A, prohibits engaging a child in sexual activity or using a child in pornographic performances or materials, but its text contains no reference to the internet, an online service, social media, or an electronic platform, so it imposes no age-verification or age-gating duty on a service provider.
The Computer Misuse Act, 2011 criminalises producing, distributing, or possessing child pornography through a computer (s. 22), and until it was struck down as unconstitutional on also criminalised unauthorised sharing of information about a child through a computer (s. 23, see the scraping-topic finding for the ruling); neither provision required a service provider to verify a user's age before granting access to a service.
As of .
Case law
No current case law for Uganda AI law
No current case law for Uganda privacy law
No current case law for Uganda scraping law
No current case law for Uganda cybersecurity law
No current case law for Uganda communications law
No current case law for Uganda content moderation law
No current case law for Uganda product and AI liability law
No current case law for Uganda digital accessibility law
No current case law for Uganda age gating law
No current case law for Uganda reuse law
Reporting clocks that run here2 instruments
The instruments whose obligation lines set a deadline for reporting an incident, a vulnerability or a personal-data breach, each deadline read from the sentence that carries it and listed shortest first. The law of Uganda comes first, then the law of the bodies above it that applies here.
Each flag is one law, and a link to it. Read down the scale: the clocks document's time axis, with the empty stretches shortened so the deadlines sit close. Flags on one line set the same duty at the same deadline, and the laws behind them are named to the right, with what each clock counts from.
The deadlines above on one time axis, shortest at the top. The axis keeps its order and, between neighbors, its proportion, but a stretch with no deadline on it is shortened, so the hour marks on the left are what say how far apart two stations really are. Beside each action, the laws that set it, what each counts from, and a status where the law is not yet in force. The List tab has the same data in full, with the sentences.
Notify the Bank of Uganda in writing no later than twenty-four hours from the occurrence of suspected or confirmed fraud relating to the electronic money service, security breaches, material service interruption or other significant issues that may affect the safety and efficiency of the electronic money service (regulation 22(4)(a)).
Notify the Bank of Uganda in writing within the same twenty-four hours of any loss of confidential data (regulation 22(4)(b)).
Notify the Bank of Uganda in writing within the same twenty-four hours of any other occurrence from which the Bank may request information (regulation 22(4)(c)).
Notify the National Information Technology Authority immediately after you believe personal data has been accessed or acquired by an unauthorised person, describing the access or acquisition and the remedial action taken.
Which of these one incident starts turns on the facts: the incident method works that through. The clocks document draws every clock in the LexLint law library on one axis, with the sentence beside every rung.
AIDrafted with AI
Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made
This page covers the instruments LexLint has researched
to a stage. Instruments named in the law library but not yet researched are
counted in the head and are not listed here. Every entry carries its own
primary source on its note page. This is a research index, not legal
advice.