top of page
Search

Ugandan Government Ministries, Departments, and Agencies Continue to Use Facebook Despite National Ban

In January 2021, in the lead-up to Uganda’s general elections, President Yoweri Museveni implemented a sweeping internet shutdown, temporarily disabling access to mobile money services and social media platforms to prevent what he termed “foreign interference” in Uganda’s political affairs. While general internet access and mobile money services were later restored, Facebook has remained inaccessible through standard internet protocols. Four years on, the platform remains officially banned in Uganda.


Yet, paradoxically, multiple government ministries, departments, and agencies—as well as businesses and individual users—continue to maintain an active presence on Facebook. This raises critical questions: Who continues to use Facebook despite the ban, and why? More importantly, should Uganda now reconsider and formally lift the restriction?


Zero Tolerance to “Foreign Interference”?

President Museveni, who has ruled Uganda since 1986, has consistently voiced concerns over what he describes as external actors attempting to meddle in the country’s internal politics. This has intensified especially after the 2005 constitutional amendment that restored multi-party politics. During the 2016 elections, the government temporarily suspended access to social media platforms, especially Facebook and WhatsApp, something the president said was to “stop people from telling lies” but did not shut down mobile money services, which as of December 2022, registered around 25 million users in the country.That changed drastically in 2021, when a total internet blackout and a mobile money shutdown coincided with the elections—culminating in a continued ban on Facebook.


In justifying the move, authorities alleged that Facebook had shut down accounts linked to pro-government voices while allowing opposition-aligned pages to continue operating. The platform was thus accused of bias and interference. However, the sustained blockade of Facebook has not only stifled digital freedom of expression but has also dealt a blow to businesses and civil society organizations that relied on the platform for marketing, outreach, and communication.


Despite the ban, many Ugandans continue to access Facebook through Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)—tools that mask one’s location and allow users to bypass local internet restrictions. This workaround, while effective, comes with financial and technological barriers, limiting access primarily to more tech-savvy or resourceful users. Estimates suggest a drop of 1.9% in Facebook’s user base in Uganda between 2021 and 2022, a likely consequence of the ban.


Ironically, even government entities appear to have embraced VPN usage to maintain their presence on Facebook. A brief survey reveals that numerous official accounts—such as those of the Uganda Police Force, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, the Parliament of Uganda, and the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (uploaded a new cover photo on January 30, 2025), among others—remain active and regularly updated. These accounts share government news, updates, and announcements, engaging with an audience that, officially, should not exist under the ban.

This situation raises two critical concerns. First, it undermines the legitimacy and enforceability of presidential directives. If both citizens and state institutions are circumventing the law, the rule of law itself is brought into question. Second, it imposes an avoidable economic burden. The average monthly cost of a quality VPN service is approximately US$10. If just half of the about three million Ugandans (2020 estimate) still on Facebook are paying for VPN services, the country is collectively spending around US$180 million annually—just slightly under a billion dollars over the past four years—on services provided largely by foreign companies. This is so much money for a country whose GDP is under US$50 billion, 42.12% of whom were considered poor by the World Bank in 2019. Moreover, the VPN budget estimate presented does not account for public funds potentially being spent by government departments on VPN services, an unjustifiable use of national resources.


A double standard—and a missed opportunity

Globally, Uganda is not alone in attempting to control or block social media platforms. The United States has debated banning TikTok on national security grounds, while China maintains a strict firewall that blocks platforms such as Facebook, Google, and WhatsApp. What makes Uganda’s situation distinct, however, is the apparent contradiction of a government both imposing and violating its own restrictions.


This contradiction not only weakens legal credibility but also points to the likelihood that the ban on Facebook was politically motivated, rather than grounded in national security concerns. It is worth asking: If the primary audience for government communications via Facebook is Ugandans, and the platform is officially inaccessible, who exactly are these communications intended for?


In light of the foregoing, it is time for the government of Uganda to re-evaluate and lift the ban on Facebook. We understand that the two parties are in talks to reopen the popular social media platform, but this has rather been slow. Expediting the reopening of Facebook would not only restore a vital communication channel for millions of Ugandans, but also curtail unnecessary spending on VPNs, enhance transparency, and reaffirm the country’s commitment to digital rights and freedom of expression.


Social media has become an essential tool for governance, civic engagement, business, and education. Uganda’s ongoing ban, particularly in the face of its own institutions’ disregard for it, reflects a policy misalignment that ultimately disadvantages the very people it purports to protect.


Selected Ugandan Government pages still active on Facebook (despite the ban):

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it demonstrates the continued and widespread use of Facebook by government entities, even in defiance of an official ban.

 
 
 

Comentarios

bottom of page