By Eye Media Uganda | January 2, 2026
Human rights lawyer and activist Sarah Bireete has been formally charged with unlawful obtaining and disclosure of personal data, contrary to Section 35 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection and Privacy Act, Cap 97, according to a charge sheet issued by Uganda Police.
The charge, preferred at Kampala Metropolitan Police (KMP) Headquarters, indicates that Bireete is accused of unlawfully obtaining and disclosing National Voters’ Information without authorization or consent from the Electoral Commission, the legally mandated data controller.
According to the particulars of offence, the alleged acts were committed between January 2025 and December 2025, at various locations within Kampala, Mukono and Wakiso districts.
Prosecutors allege that Bireete, together with others still at large, accessed or disclosed personal voter data that is lawfully controlled or processed by the Electoral Commission.
Police state that the alleged actions contravene Section 35 of the Data Protection and Privacy Act, which expressly prohibits any person from unlawfully obtaining, disclosing, or procuring the disclosure of personal data held by a data collector, controller, or processor.
Under Section 35 (2) of the Act, a person convicted of the offence is liable to a fine not exceeding 240 currency points, or imprisonment not exceeding ten years, or both.
The charge sheet was sanctioned by the Resident State Attorney, and the matter is expected to be placed before a competent Magistrate’s Court for further proceedings.
Legal analysts note that the case is among the most prominent applications of Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act in relation to electoral data, an area regarded as highly sensitive due to its implications for privacy, national security, and the integrity of the electoral process.
By law, the Electoral Commission is the custodian of the national voters’ register, and any access, use, or disclosure of such data requires express legal authority or consent.
As proceedings commence, Bireete remains presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
The case is likely to generate sustained public and legal debate, particularly at the intersection of data protection, civic activism, and electoral governance in Uganda.
