Overview:
The tragic loss of life during police crackdowns on peaceful protests in Mbarara and Iganga raises serious questions about the role of law enforcement in a democratic society. The inspector general of police, Abbas Byakagaba, has publicly justified these interventions, citing disobedience to traffic rules and alleged mischief among protesters.
In a democratic society, the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression and assembly, is crucial.
Justice Byamugisha’s ruling in the case of Moses Mwandha v Attorney General constitutional petition No. 5 of 2007, highlights an essential truth: a society’s commitment to democracy is measured not by the absence of disorder, but by its tolerance of dissent and inconvenience in the pursuit of free expression.
Recent events surrounding the National Unity Platform (NUP) illustrate a troubling trend in how authorities are managing political opposition, and stifling civil liberties.
The tragic loss of life during police crackdowns on peaceful protests in Mbarara and Iganga raises serious questions about the role of law enforcement in a democratic society. The inspector general of police, Abbas Byakagaba, has publicly justified these interventions, citing disobedience to traffic rules and alleged mischief among protesters.
However, these explanations do little to mask the reality that the response has been disproportionately violent and targeted primarily at opposition supporters.
Such actions not only undermine the fundamental right to assemble but also reflect a bias that is deeply concerning in a state that claims to uphold the principles of democracy.
The unjustified use of tear gas and live ammunition against peaceful demonstrators is a stark departure from the principles espoused by Justice C.K. Byamugisha. Her observations remind us that a healthy democracy must allow for a degree of disruption as a necessary trade-off for protecting free expression.
The repeated crackdowns against NUP supporters reveal a systematic suppression of
dissent that disregards this principle. Moreover, the apparent double standard in law enforcement practices cannot be overlooked.
Observations indicate that rulings are inconsistently applied; when rallies are held by the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), violations of traffic orders and other regulations often go unchecked.
This blatant lack of neutrality from police forces not only erodes public trust but also emboldens a perception that the security apparatus has aligned itself with the ruling party, rather than fulfilling its duty to protect all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.
The jurisdiction transformed into an environment where political expression is synonymous with chaos is detrimental to the democratic framework. When police interventions lead to chaos rather than order, as we have seen in places like Kyaliwajjala and Mbarara, it raises the question: is the true aim to maintain public safety, or to eliminate political opposition?
Justice requires that law enforcement operates without bias and authoritarian tendencies. Police should serve as protectors of civil liberties, ensuring that all citizens can express their political beliefs freely and safely.
The current approach, marked by suppression and intimidation of opposition voices, risks perpetuating a cycle of violence and discord, undermining the very fabric of democracy. In light of this concerning trajectory, it is imperative that we advocate for a return to the principles of justice articulated by Byamugisha.
Tolerance for processions, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable, is a hallmark of a society committed to freedom. Our collective responsibility is to demand accountability from those in power, ensuring that the rights to assemble and associate are respected for all citizens, not just those aligned with the ruling party.
Only then can we begin to rebuild a society that truly reflects the values of democracy and justice.
I have always asked; who in his/her right state of mind can still deny that: Ugandans are under a Domestic Colonialism, by domestic colonialists and for domestic colonialists?
Who in his/her right state of mind can still deny that the NRM is a regime of the UNDEMOCRATIC, by the Undemocratic and for Undemocratic?
Similarly, I have asked; who in his/her right state of mind can still deny that the NRM is a regime of criminals, by criminals and for criminals?
And who in his/her right state of mind can still deny that the NRM is a regime of a bloody Military Dictatorship, by bloody military dictators and for bloody military dictators, etc., etc.?
And so far NOBODY even our 85-years-old PROBLEM OF AFRICA himself, Gen Tibuhaburwa or son, Gen MK has stepped forward to DENY all these humble and simple questions.
Who in his/her right state of mind, can still DENY that the Electoral Commission/ers, the Police, RDCs, UPDF, etc., are Gen Tibuhaburwa’s POLLING AGENTS?
And therefore, 40 years and counting; who in his/her right state of mind cans still deny that: our current 85-years-old PROBLEM OF AFRICA, Gen Tibuhaburwa, is WORSE than all the former Colonial Governors, Amin (RIP) and Obote II (RIP) ALL combined.
In other word, who in his/her right state of mind can still deny that: 40 years and counting, all the NRM members, supporter and/or sympathisers, are subscribers and accomplices of dishonesty, election rigging/violence, crime against humanity and injustice against Ugandans?
Wachireba Bashuma?