STAY UP TO DATE: The Effects of the US Foreign Aid Freeze on Freedom House
Expanding Freedom and Democracy
Freedom on the Net 2025

Uganda

Partly Free
52
100
A Obstacles to Access 15 25
B Limits on Content 21 35
C Violations of User Rights 16 40
Last Year's Score & Status
53 100 Partly Free
Scores are based on a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free). See the methodology and report acknowledgements.
Uganda_hero_map

header1 Key Developments, June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025

Internet freedom in Uganda declined slightly during the coverage period. The government continued to restrict the space for free expression online by cracking down on social media users, including through the imposition of multiyear prison sentences. Online intimidation and harassment against LGBT+ users persisted.

  • The government continued to exert control over online news media. In June 2024, journalists Dickson Mubiru and Alirabaki Sengooba, both from the digital outlet theGrapeVine, were charged with operating without a broadcasting license. The charges were linked to two reports—one on a disagreement between a lawyer and a High Court judge and the other on alleged corruption among legislators (B6 and C3).1
  • Internet users faced arrests and prison sentences for their online activities during the coverage period. In July 2024, a court sentenced Edward Awebwa to six years in prison for insulting President Yoweri Museveni and his family on the short-video platform TikTok.2 Another TikToker, Emmanuel Nabugodi, was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison in November 2024 for the alleged offenses of hate speech and spreading malicious information. He had posted a video that depicted a mock trial of Museveni (C3).3
  • Persecution of LGBT+ internet users persisted during the coverage period. A May 2025 report from Access Now documented at least 17 people who had been arbitrarily detained or criminally charged under Uganda’s harsh anti-LGBT+ laws between May 2023 and March 2025 after being entrapped or otherwise deceived online (C3).4
  • In an October 2024 report, Amnesty International noted at least four cases in which LGBT+ people or organizations had their social media accounts hacked. In one case, the hacker posted doctored images that could incriminate the victim. The same report found that LGBT+ people and those suspected of being LGBT+ have also faced doxing and online harassment, including death threats (C7 and C8).5

header2 Political Overview

While Uganda continues to hold regular elections, their credibility has deteriorated. The country has been ruled by the National Resistance Movement (NRM) and President Yoweri Museveni since 1986. The NRM retains power through patronage, intimidation, and politicized prosecutions of opposition leaders. Uganda’s civil society and media sectors face legal and extralegal harassment and state violence.

This report has been abridged for Freedom on the Net 2025 due to ongoing budget constraints. Please consider making a donation to support future editions of this vital resource.

For additional background information, see last year’s full report.

A Obstacles to Access

A1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? 2.002 6.006
A2 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? 1.001 3.003
A3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? 6.006 6.006

Score Change: The score improved from 5 to 6 because, while the social media platform Facebook remains blocked on some mobile networks, it is routinely accessed through other service providers.

A4 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? 5.005 6.006
A5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers and digital technology fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? 1.001 4.004

B Limits on Content

B1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 5.005 6.006
B2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, content hosts, or digital platforms to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
B3 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 2.002 4.004
B4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 2.002 4.004
B5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a particular political interest? 2.002 4.004
B6 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are there economic or regulatory constraints that negatively affect users’ ability to publish content online? 1.001 3.003
B7 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? 3.003 4.004
B8 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do conditions impede users’ ability to mobilize, form communities, and campaign, particularly on political and social issues? 4.004 6.006

C Violations of User Rights

C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? 2.002 6.006
C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 1.001 4.004
C3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 2.002 6.006

Score Change: The score declined from 3 to 2 because at least two internet users received multiyear prison sentences during the coverage period.

C4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption? 2.002 4.004
C5 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy? 2.002 6.006
C6 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy? 3.003 6.006
C7 1.00-5.00 pts0-5 pts
Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? 3.003 5.005
C8 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? 1.001 3.003

Score Change: The score declined from 2 to 1 because several LGBT+ individuals and organizations have reportedly had their social media accounts hacked.

On Uganda

See all data, scores & information on this country or territory.

See More

Country Facts

  • Population

    47,250,000

  • Global Freedom Score

    34 100 not free

  • Internet Freedom Score

    52 100 partly free

  • Freedom in the World Status

    Not Free

  • Networks Restricted

    No

  • Websites Blocked

    No

  • Pro-government Commentators

    Yes

  • Users Arrested

    Yes