Authored By: Akatwijuka Comfort
UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Abstract
Recently I watched a Netflix South African show called “Bad Influencer,” and one of the main protagonists branded herself as an “influencer.” As I watched the show, I started to notice how a specific brand picked her up, and after a minor slip-up, dropped her. It made me ask myself: do social media influencers that we watch on our phones actually have protection, or are they left to the mercies of shrewd company brands that use and dump them on a whim? It made me look at my own country, Uganda, where social media apps have become a frenzy and a main platform for brands to advertise their products through influencers. Do we actually have laws that protect them, or are we failing to protect our own? In this article, I look at the laws we currently have, like the Computer Misuse Act (2011) with its 2022 Amendment and the Data Protection and Privacy Act 2019, and identify the gaps that impede creators’ rights and economic security.
Introduction
The rise of social media has created new forms of income in Uganda. For emphasis, the Act1 defines social media as a set of technologies, sites, and practices used to share opinions, experiences, and perspectives, including YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Reddit, Quora, Skype, Microsoft Teams, and LinkedIn.
Influencers can therefore be defined as people who leverage online visibility and digital content to shape opinions and promote products using the platforms mentioned above. Unlike journalists, advertisers, and broadcasters, influencers do not fall within existing regulatory categories. Their work intersects with freedom of expression, consumer protection, data protection, and cybercrime, and the result is a fragmented framework with little consistency or predictability. These influencers are increasingly subjected to online surveillance and disputes with brands because they lack explicit statutory protection and guidelines.
This article argues that Uganda needs a coherent, rights-based regulatory framework tailored to the influencer economy. Such a framework would create legal certainty and protect influencers’ constitutional freedoms. This analysis identifies gaps in current legislation and points toward solutions to protect both creators and the public.
Uganda’s Current Legal Framework Affecting Influencers
The Computer Misuse Act 2011 and the 2022 Amendment
This Act has become one of the most significant pieces of legislation affecting digital creators. Section 24 addresses cyber harassment and sets out the punishment for anyone who commits the offence. The 2022 Amendment introduced new offences relating to cybercrime, including the misuse of social media, unauthorized sharing of information, and the criminalization of malicious information.
As a result, influencers who comment on public affairs, critique brands, or use satire risk being charged based on subjective interpretations of what counts as “malicious” or “misleading” content. The Uganda Law Society has challenged the vagueness of these provisions and their incompatibility with constitutional guarantees, but the matter remains unresolved.
Data Protection and Privacy Act 2019
Influencers usually collect, process, or store personal data through engagement metrics, direct messages, and brand collaborations. This Act defines concepts like consent and data, and sets out the principles that govern data protection and privacy.
It emphasizes that data subjects must always give consent, and that controllers must ensure adequate security. It makes clear that data cannot be processed unlawfully or disclosed without authorization. The Act offers privacy protections that many influencers are unaware of, both in terms of their rights and their obligations, since most experience privacy intrusions, cyberbullying, and nonconsensual use of their images — issues our laws have yet to fully address.2
Intellectual Property and Contract Law
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act3 protects original content, yet online sharing blurs authorship boundaries as influencers recreate one another’s work. This leads to unauthorized reuse of images and videos, music copyright claims on social platforms, and exploitative contracts with brands that lack clarity on compensation and usage rights.
These contractual gaps are not abstract. A recent event featuring a well-known DJ illustrates the problem: several influencers were contacted and asked to advertise the event in exchange for two tickets each. On the day of the event, they were sent emails informing them that they would only receive one ticket — a breach of the original agreement and a clearly unfair outcome. It was incidents like this that sparked my interest in this issue. Uganda currently lacks clear legal protection for influencer-brand contracts.
Consumer Protection and Advertising Regulations
Uganda has no explicit statutory requirement for influencers to disclose paid content (e.g., “AD” or “Sponsored”). This creates consumer risks such as misleading advertising, and legal uncertainty for influencers, since the absence of structured guidelines leaves them vulnerable to liability for misleading commercials while offering little protection when brands fail to honor contractual obligations.4
Jurisprudence Shaping Influencer Protection
Judicial decisions in Uganda have increasingly addressed digital expression; however, the term “influencer” has not yet appeared in case law, and the specific issues influencers face remain untackled by the courts. The cases below form the current rights-based framework that indirectly shapes influencer protection.
Andrew Karamagi & Robert Shaka v. Attorney General5
The legal issue in this case was whether Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act threatens or infringes on online or digital freedom of expression, and whether it is inconsistent with Article 29(1) of the Constitution.6 The offence criminalized the willful and repeated use of electronic communication to disturb another person’s peace.
The Constitutional Court invalidated Section 25, finding it vague, overly broad, and ambiguous, since it failed to specify what conduct constitutes “offensive communication.” The Court concluded that the section was inconsistent with Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution: laws that limit the enjoyment of digital and online freedom of speech must be clear and narrowly aimed.
Uganda Law Society Petition Challenging the 2022 Amendment7
The Uganda Law Society filed a petition with the Constitutional Court arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it infringes on free speech and expression and is overly broad. The Society sought to have the amendment declared void, arguing that Sections 24 and 25 violate freedom of speech and media rights and will silence online voices while restricting the free flow of information, ideas, and entertainment.
Challenges Faced by Influencers in Uganda
Criminalization of Speech
Influencers risk arrest for commentary, satire, or political criticism under broadly drafted cyber offences. This unpredictability creates fear, leads to self-censorship, and undermines public discourse.
Contractual and Commercial Vulnerability
Influencers often sign poorly drafted agreements with brands that lack clarity on payment terms, intellectual property rights, and how long their content may be used beyond the original campaign period.
As mentioned above, the DJ event incident — where influencers were promised two tickets and later told they would only receive one — illustrates how influencers are taken advantage of in Uganda due to gaps in the law around the social media economy. There is also no industry standard, such as a minimum rate of pay, for influencers; the same case shows influencers being compensated in tickets rather than actual monetary payment, which invites exploitation and disputes.
Online Abuse
Harassment, impersonation, and gendered abuse are increasingly common. Current laws provide limited remedies specific to influencers, who often maintain a highly public presence.
Lack of Recognition of Influencers as Workers
Influencing is a form of labor that generates real economic value, yet influencers lack basic worker protections such as minimum wage standards, taxation guidance, and access to digital economy support schemes.
What Is the Way Forward Towards a Rights-Based Regulatory Framework?
Clear Legal Recognition of Influencers
Uganda should adopt influencer and digital creator laws that clearly differentiate between commercial influencers, political commentators, and micro-influencers. These laws should specify the rights afforded to each category, which bodies govern them, and which authorities they can turn to in cases of exploitation. This would ensure tailored obligations and rights that influencers must adhere to.
Advertising and Disclosure Standards
Uganda should look to Kenya’s Advertising Standards Board8 as a model, requiring disclosure of paid partnerships through clear labels such as “AD” or “Sponsored.” This would help protect consumers and clarify influencers’ commercial responsibilities.
Protection of Digital Speech
Parliament should revise vague cyber offences to incorporate constitutional proportionality tests and clear defenses for satire, opinion, and public interest commentary. This would help influencers understand the boundaries they should not cross and how to better phrase their posts, leaving less room for misinterpretation.
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
A sector-based tribunal or alternative dispute resolution mechanism should be established to handle influencer-brand contractual disputes, brand noncompliance, misuse of influencer images, and payment disputes. Such a tribunal would help avoid case backlog and give influencers — particularly those without financial access to lawyers — a path to a viable resolution.
Conclusion
Influencers continue to emerge and play a growing role in Uganda’s economy, yet the legal environment in which they operate remains fragmented and unhelpful. While judicial decisions have begun to challenge vague criminal restrictions on online speech, statutory reform has not kept pace with technological realities. A coherent, rights-based framework is essential to protect creators and promote fair commerce. Clear definitions, consumer protections, and closing the payment gaps in the influencer sector are all necessary steps. If these reforms are properly implemented, Uganda can build a digital legal system that benefits both the public and the economy.
Note(S):
1. The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act 2022.
2. Data Protection and Privacy Act 2019.
3. Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006.
4. Consumer Protection Regulations, Uganda.
5. Andrew Karamagi and Robert Shaka v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2016.
6. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
8. Kenya Advertising Standards Board.
Bibliography
Andrew Karamagi and Robert Shaka v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2016.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.
The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022.
The Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019.
The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006.
Consumer Protection Regulations, Uganda.
Kenya Advertising Standards Board.
