How Much Freedom Does a Citizen Have to Criticise Government?

In a democracy, disagreement with those in power is not necessarily a threat to the state. It can be an important part of holding leaders accountable.

Uganda's Constitution recognises this principle. Article 29 guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom to communicate ideas and opinions. Citizens also have rights to peaceful assembly, association and participation in the affairs of government.

But these freedoms are not unlimited. The Constitution allows certain restrictions where they are necessary to protect other people's rights, public safety and other legitimate public interests. The important question is whether such restrictions are reasonable, lawful and justifiable in a free and democratic society.

This distinction matters because criticising government policy is not the same as committing a crime.

A citizen should be able to say that a government programme is failing, question how public money is being spent, challenge a law, demand better services or disagree with a government decision. In fact, democratic institutions benefit when citizens are willing to ask difficult questions.

Uganda's current debate around the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026 demonstrates why this conversation matters. Human rights activists, politicians and civil society actors have petitioned the Constitutional Court, arguing that some provisions could restrict freedoms of expression, association, assembly and participation in governance. The government, meanwhile, has defended the legislation as necessary to protect national interests and sovereignty.

The issue, therefore, is not whether government should be above criticism. It should not. The question is how a democratic society balances freedom of expression with legitimate concerns such as public safety, national security and the rights of others.

Citizens also have a responsibility. Freedom of expression does not give anyone a licence to incite violence, threaten others or deliberately violate the rights of fellow citizens.

A healthy democracy needs both responsible citizens and accountable institutions.

So perhaps the better question is not simply “How much freedom should Ugandans have to criticise government?”

It is:

“How do we build a Uganda where citizens can question those in power without fear, while exercising that freedom responsibly and within the law?”

That is ultimately what constitutional democracy should protect—the right to disagree without turning disagreement into a crime.

What do you think? Is Uganda doing enough to protect the right of citizens to criticise government while maintaining public order and respect for the law?