Uganda’s Personal Data Protection Office (PDPO) has recently taken a significant regulatory step by directing Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook and WhatsApp, to comply with Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act of 2019. The directive follows a complaint reportedly filed in 2025 by the legal advocacy group AdLegal, alleging unlawful processing and sharing of Ugandan users’ personal data.
For those of us working in digital rights advocacy, this moment is important. I see this development not as an isolated regulatory dispute, but as part of a broader continental push toward asserting data sovereignty.
A Shift From Passive Markets to Active Regulators
For years, African countries have largely been treated as passive markets in the global technology ecosystem—sources of user growth and data extraction, but rarely centres of regulatory influence. Multinational platforms operate seamlessly across borders, often with limited local presence, while domestic regulators struggle to enforce compliance.
Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act (2019) provides a legal framework for safeguarding personal data, including requirements for lawful processing, transparency, cross-border data transfer safeguards, and registration of data controllers and processors. The PDPO’s insistence that global platforms comply—even where they may not have a substantial physical footprint in Uganda—signals that digital services accessible within the country are subject to national law.
This is not unprecedented globally. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) established the principle that companies offering services to EU residents must comply regardless of location. Uganda’s actions reflect a similar interpretation within its own jurisdictional context: if you process Ugandan data subjects’ information, you must answer to Ugandan law.
Why Data Sovereignty Matters
Data sovereignty is not a slogan. It is about ensuring that citizens retain enforceable rights over their personal information—how it is collected, stored, shared, monetised, and transferred across borders.
In practical terms, weak data governance can expose individuals to identity theft, financial fraud, discrimination, political profiling, and reputational harm. In economies like Uganda’s, where digital financial services, mobile money, health platforms, and e-government systems are expanding rapidly, trust in digital systems is foundational.
Africa’s internet penetration continues to grow steadily, and with it the volume of personal data generated daily. As digital adoption accelerates, so too must regulatory enforcement capacity. While countries such as Kenya, Rwanda, and Nigeria have enacted data protection laws, enforcement remains uneven across the continent. Uganda’s regulatory assertiveness therefore contributes to a developing body of African practice around data governance.
The Human Cost of Weak Oversight
From my experience at Unwanted Witness, data protection is not theoretical. We have documented cases where mishandling of personal information—whether through leaks, weak security safeguards, or opaque data-sharing practices—has left individuals exposed to harm.
Ugandans increasingly rely on digital tools for banking, communication, education, and public services. When personal data is compromised, the consequences are immediate and personal. Beyond financial losses, there is erosion of trust in digital infrastructure—trust that is essential for economic inclusion and innovation.
The PDPO’s action underscores a central principle: accountability must extend throughout the data lifecycle. Transparency in data collection practices, lawful grounds for processing, clear consent mechanisms, and safeguards for cross-border transfers are not optional technicalities; they are core rights protections.
Compliance as Opportunity, Not Punishment
It is important to frame regulatory enforcement correctly. Compliance with data protection law should not be viewed as hostility toward innovation. Rather, it creates predictability, strengthens consumer confidence, and levels the playing field for responsible actors.
For multinational platforms, deeper engagement with local regulatory environments—such as appointing accessible data protection representatives, registering as required, and strengthening local compliance mechanisms—can improve public trust. For domestic startups, early integration of privacy-by-design principles can become a competitive advantage in an increasingly regulated global digital economy.
At the continental level, frameworks such as the African Union’s Data Policy Framework offer guidance for harmonisation. However, such instruments gain real traction only when national regulators actively enforce existing laws.
A Defining Moment for Digital Self-Determination
Uganda’s recent action should not be exaggerated, nor should it be dismissed. It represents an evolving regulatory maturity: a recognition that digital markets operating within national borders must respect national legal standards.
For civil society, the work continues—monitoring enforcement, supporting data subjects seeking remedies, and educating citizens about their rights. For governments, the task is to strengthen institutional capacity so that data protection offices are adequately resourced and independent. For companies, the message is clear: Africa is not a regulatory vacuum.
As artificial intelligence, cross-border cloud infrastructure, and data-driven economies expand, the question is no longer whether African states will regulate digital platforms—but how effectively they will do so.
True digital progress must respect sovereignty, legal accountability, and human dignity. Uganda’s stance is one step in that direction.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
