Content creator and YouTuber Frank Ntambi has scored a significant legal victory after the Chief Magistrate's Court at Lugazi dismissed a private criminal case that had been filed against him and fellow accused Bukenya Nelson.
Ntambi shared the news on his social media platforms shortly after the ruling, describing it as a "landmark victory."
According to the court ruling dated 9 July 2026, Senior Principal Magistrate Nsobya Ronald Kamya upheld preliminary objections raised by the defence and found that the complaint had been instituted under Section 162 of the Penal Code Act, a provision that the Constitutional Court had already nullified.
The magistrate ruled that because the prosecution was premised on a law that had been struck down, the criminal summons issued against the two accused could not stand.
"I accordingly uphold the objections... I hence set aside the summons issued in Criminal Case No. 0093 of 2026 and dismiss the case and complaint," the ruling states.
The court also dismissed a related miscellaneous application, declaring it had been rendered nugatory following the dismissal of the main case.
Court documents indicate that the private prosecution had been initiated by Kawanguzi Julius, who accused Ntambi and Bukenya of criminal defamation. Earlier summons issued on 25 June 2026 required the pair to appear before court to answer the charge.
Following the ruling, Ntambi expressed relief, writing:
"The Chief Magistrate's Court at Lugazi has dismissed the private criminal case against me and Bukenya Nelson, ruling that it was founded on a legal provision that had already been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court."
He added that the complainant was someone he had never met personally and alleged that the case stemmed from claims that he had defamed the complainant's pastor.
"Someone I have never met instituted a private prosecution against us, alleging we had defamed his Pastor... imagine that man. Imagine!"
The ruling reinforces the legal position that criminal proceedings cannot proceed under statutory provisions that have already been invalidated by the Constitutional Court. Court records specifically reference the Constitutional Court decision in Alternative Digitalk Limited and Others v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Petitions Nos. 34, 37 and 42 of 2022) as the basis for finding that the legal provision relied upon in the complaint was no longer valid.