Last week, the release of the 2025 Primary Leaving Examinations (PLE) results kick-started a busy period for the public media when the frictionless movement of vast quantities of data typically attracts many eyeballs.
With the release of O-Level and A-Level results also in the pipeline, media houses find themselves at a juncture where the aggregation and refinement of data is primed to give them huge new value. But with all this comes one concomitant obligation if not responsibility-being mindful of the fact that the interests of an individual in data and privacy have to be brought into balance.
During the release of the 2025 PLE results, last Friday, Ms Janet Museveni was at pains to stress that, in the aforesaid fundamental asymmetry between the individual and the public media, the State has every intention to ensure that no one is disadvantaged by having their data processed without their consent.
The First Lady, who also doubles as the Education and Sports minister, correctly pointed out that the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 provides a handy shield against undue harm. Which is just as well. As players in the information economy, we hold ourselves to standards that demand the collection and analysis of huge quantities of anonymised data as well as collection of personal vignettes produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
We do not take the issue of informed consent lightly. Our editorial policies are explicit about being intentional when it comes to minimising pain. At the heart of this is the need to safeguard the wellbeing if not mental health of the voiceless. This explains why, in our reportage, we intentionally set out to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
We, therefore, welcome the First Lady’s keen interest in the mental health of the voiceless. The interest should, however, be broadened. Telcos, big data harvesting companies, and even the State have approached their obligations to Ugandans who supply their personal data in a manner that leaves a lot to be desired. Unsolicited messages severally appear on the gadgets of many Ugandans, causing undue distress in the process.
Personal data should only be used for purposes for which informed consent has been given by the owners. As such, an unsolicited message from Yoweri Museveni’s campaign team, making a case for his re-election, should be treated with the contempt that publication of a pupil’s PLE results without their consent merits.
In the same vein, the conceptual tools that the State uses to determine breaches of privacy rights must make the rubicon clear enough. The manner in which State actors have not just accessed but also callously shared personal phone conversations of journalists and rights activists, for one, is deeply disturbing.
It goes without saying that these missteps, if they merit being called such, have to be condemned in the strongest terms possible. They continue to inflict lasting mental anguish on many, and have a chilling effect on others more not caught in the crosshairs but are in the business of holding the government accountable.
All told, it would be counterproductive to be selective in the application of privacy laws on our books. The issue of data that is collected by public bodies but exploited to the point of being abused-either by State intelligence officials or indeed private monopolies-should be the clearest indication yet that something of the gravest nature has occurred. That something, we strongly believe, has to be decisively addressed to birth a Uganda that works for all.