Uganda Bars Live Broadcasts of ‘Riots’ Ahead of Jan. 15 Vote, Raising Press-Freedom Fears

Uganda’s government has ordered broadcasters and online platforms to stop live coverage of what it calls “riots,” “unlawful processions” and other violent incidents during this month’s general election, a move rights groups say will sharply limit public scrutiny of a vote already marred by arrests and allegations of abuse.

Directive targets live coverage

In a directive dated Jan. 5, the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance said live broadcasts or livestreams of such events “are prohibited, as they can escalate tensions and spread panic.” The order applies to television and radio stations as well as online outlets and individuals using digital platforms to stream video.

The restrictions come just 10 days before Ugandans are due to vote on Jan. 15 in presidential, parliamentary and local elections that could extend President Yoweri Museveni’s rule into a fifth decade. Opposition parties, media advocates and human rights organizations say the ban targets the very moments when independent coverage is most needed — protests, clashes and potential irregularities at polling stations.

The ministry directive frames the move as a public-order measure and part of a broader effort to curb incitement and hate speech online. It also warns that publishing “inciting, hateful or violent” content will attract “enforcement action” and reminds media houses and digital platforms that they are barred from announcing unofficial or partial election results.

“Live broadcasting or livestreaming of riots, unlawful processions or violent incidents is prohibited,” Permanent Secretary Aminah Zawedde said as she unveiled the rules. “Such content can escalate tensions and spread fear, which is unacceptable at this critical national moment.”

Zawedde said the media and digital platforms are “central to democratic participation” but must be used “in the interest of truth, stability, and the public good.” She added that only the Electoral Commission is authorized to declare results, calling the sharing of “unverified or premature results” illegal.

Regulator to enforce, penalties threatened

The Uganda Communications Commission, the state regulator, has been tasked with enforcing the directive. Its executive director, Nyombi Thembo, told journalists that “the declaration of election results is the sole mandate of the Electoral Commission. Unofficial tally centres, premature announcements, or broadcasting unverified results are unlawful.”

Thembo said the commission is “actively monitoring both broadcast and online content” during the election period. Sanctions for defying the rules, officials have said, could include suspension or revocation of licenses and prosecution under the Uganda Communications Act, the Computer Misuse Act and electoral laws.

Authorities have coupled the broadcast ban with reminders that journalists covering the polls must be accredited by the government-appointed Media Council and the Electoral Commission, which also have the power to revoke accreditation for violations of “any Ugandan law.”

Government officials insist the measures are not aimed at silencing critics but at preventing violence and disinformation in a heated political climate. They have also sought to distance themselves from speculation that they plan to shut down the internet, as they did around previous elections.

“There is no directive to disrupt internet services,” Zawedde said, calling claims of an impending blackout “false and misleading.”

Thembo said that if any decision were made to limit access, the regulator would publicly “brief the country and explain why.”

A history of shutdowns and restrictions

Those assurances have done little to ease fears among journalists and opposition groups, who see the broadcast ban as part of a longer pattern of controlling information during elections.

In 2016, Ugandan authorities ordered mobile operators to block access to Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and other social media on election day, citing public order concerns. Similar restrictions were imposed during Museveni’s inauguration that May. In 2021, regulators first blocked social media and messaging apps and then imposed a nationwide internet shutdown the night before voting in a contest that pitted Museveni against pop star-turned-politician Robert Kyagulanyi, better known as Bobi Wine.

That election was preceded by some of the deadliest political unrest in recent years. More than 50 people were killed in November 2020 when security forces opened fire and used tear gas to disperse protests after Kyagulanyi was arrested during the campaign. Authorities described the crowds as “rioters.”

Rights organizations say the new directive’s focus on “riots” and “unlawful processions” could give security forces and regulators wide latitude to suppress coverage of opposition activity, since officials have previously labeled peaceful demonstrations as illegal gatherings.

Rights groups and journalists warn of chilling effect

Amnesty International said last week that Ugandan authorities are subjecting opposition supporters to a “brutal campaign of repression” ahead of the 2026 vote, including beatings, tear gas, stun guns and arbitrary arrests. The group said hundreds of people, mainly from Kyagulanyi’s National Unity Platform, have been detained during the campaign.

The organization warned that the broadcast ban, combined with reports of torture and incommunicado detention, “makes it extremely difficult for Ugandans to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association.”

Local media groups have also raised alarms. The Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda has criticized restrictions on specific outlets, including a 2025 decision by Parliament and the presidency to bar reporters from Nation Media Group Uganda from covering their proceedings, saying such steps undermine the public’s right to information.

The Uganda Journalists Association has threatened to boycott coverage of the 2026 elections unless authorities provide concrete safety guarantees, citing violent attacks on reporters during a by-election last year. The association has argued that without protection from physical and legal threats, journalists “should not be involved” in covering the polls.

Editors and broadcaster associations have condemned recent restrictions as unconstitutional and warned that regulatory and accreditation powers are being used to narrow the space for independent reporting.

Opposition sees bid to control narrative

Opposition politicians say the latest directive confirms their fears that the government intends to manage not only the vote but also how it is seen, both domestically and abroad.

Kyagulanyi and his party have accused security forces of abducting and torturing their supporters, allegations the government has denied. They say restricting live coverage of protests, arrests and clashes will make it harder to document abuses and mobilize support.

Because of earlier internet disruptions, the National Unity Platform has promoted an offline vote-monitoring tool that uses Bluetooth to share results among observers, hoping to build a parallel record of tallies even if connectivity is restricted. Party officials say the new rules against “unofficial tally centres” and “premature” result announcements appear aimed in part at such efforts.

Wider controls on connectivity

The government has also moved to tighten control over alternative internet infrastructure. In late December, customs officials said any imports of Starlink satellite internet equipment would require clearance from Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the president’s son and a senior military commander. The ICT ministry later said Starlink had been ordered to halt operations and deactivate terminals because it was not licensed, saying that providing telecommunications services without authorization is an offense.

Legal analysts and press-freedom advocates say the combined effect of the broadcast ban, licensing rules, accreditation controls and past shutdowns is a dense web of tools that can be used to limit real-time scrutiny of the electoral process.

They point to the vague wording of the Jan. 5 directive — particularly terms such as “riot,” “unlawful procession,” “inciting” and “hateful” content — and to past instances in which authorities have applied similar labels broadly.

The government maintains that the measures are necessary to prevent violence and ensure that only accurate information reaches the public. Critics counter that the health of the election depends not only on whether citizens can cast ballots, but also on whether they can see what happens in the streets and at polling stations when those ballots are cast and counted.

As more than 21 million registered voters prepare to go to the polls on Jan. 15, Uganda enters the final stretch of the campaign with a clear signal from the state about what will not be shown live. Whether that makes the country more stable — or simply less visible — may only become clear after the cameras have been turned off.