The Price of Democracy

This is a response to my friend Dr. Joseph Okia’s facebook post on the ''Ideologue Group'' wall (which is reproduced below )

Dear Joseph, I have read your face book post on the riots in Uganda and wish to recommend you to my rather long piece in which I tried to address most of the concerns you raise. Please find it at http://danielruhweza.blogspot.com/2011/04/walking-to-work-peacefully.html For emphasis however, I will respond to some specific issues which I consider to be of utmost concern to me -

(1)Under the Police act the police is mandated to ensure exactly that, anyone wishing to carry on an assembly, protest, walk is therefore required to inform police, agree on the route the protest will take and where the final assembly point will be,simple!



Assuming that the section of the Police Act you refer to is Section 32. Let me quote it here verbatim –

''Power to regulate assemblies and processions.''
(1) Any officer in charge of police may issue orders for the purpose
of—(a)regulating the extent to which music, drumming or a public address system may be used on public roads or streets or at occasion of festivals or ceremonies;

(b)directing the conduct of assemblies and processions on public roads or streets or at places of public resort and the route by which and the times at which any procession may pass.

(2) If it comes to the knowledge of the inspector general that it is intended to convene any assembly or form any procession on any public road or street or at any place of public resort, and the inspector general has reasonable grounds for believing that the assembly or procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace, the inspector general may, by notice in writing to the person responsible for convening the assembly or forming the procession, prohibit the convening of the assembly or forming of the procession.

(3)The inspector general may delegate in writing to an officer in charge of police all or any of the powers conferred upon him or her by subsection (2) subject to such limitations, exceptions or qualifications as the inspector general may specify.

The aforementioned section as I understand it, is silent on walking to work (W2W). In any case, the status quo in Uganda today is that the police has banned demonstrations - which it is now asking asking to be informed about. and , This for me sound quite problematic. It is true that 'if anyone would genuinely want to protest against high fuel and food prices all they would have to do is set the date, discuss with police the where and when, agree and hold the protest!'' However, by banning demonstrations, the police acted unconstitutionally - in spite of the declarations of the Uganda Constitutional Court in the case of Mwanga Kivumbi Vs the AG . Therefore for police to turn around and require would-be demonstrators to inform it of a proposed demonstration is contradictory. This is the same contradiction our President makes. It is therefore not true that ''These politicians know exactly how it works, but they are deliberately drawing the police into a confrontation by refusing to play by the rules.''


It is no secret that opposition leaders –as expected in a free and democratic society- are supposed to try to make political mileage from any government slip-up (see the rather insensitive press releases by Minister Kabakumba Masiko ., ., and Kirunda Kiveijinja

The tenets of democracy are that the official opposition is both the government in waiting and also citizens of this country with rights to express themselves on any issue of public interest and concern. They therefore cannot be criticised for doing what is expected of any opposition nor should it be a surprise that they will front the cause of the disadvantaged. That should therefore not be seen as a '' deception'' and i do not think it is in anycase the ''root of the violence''. I would actually be very concerned if the opposition did not speak out against the government inaction as this is the rule of thumb in any democracy.(who in any case remain part of the electorate). Therefore, we cannot blame the opposition for striving to win political points while the reaction of the government has been largely insensitive.


However, I have mentioned in other spaces that the people who sympathise with the synonym ''Activists 4 Change'' are both politicians and non politicians. To the best of my knowledge, it is a loose group which – to the best of my knowledge is not even registered or mandated to represent specific political aspirations. It has sympathisers from all corners of Uganda and beyond – many of whom are mere commentators on Facebook and Twitter. It is not necessarily synonymous with the official opposition in parliament who have given the A4C some political mileage by participating in A4C discourses.

I do not agree that the A4C went on ‘’television, radio and announce(d)( that they ) will be holding a procession (i.e come and join me as I walk). I think some people have mixed up the two kinds of events. The facts, as I understand them (and I beg to be corrected) are that the organisers of the W2W announced that they will be walking to their diverse work places – they did not announce that it would be a procession. This is essence means that the kind of demonstrations envisaged by the Section 32 do not apply here. There will not be and has not been a common work place or assembly point that you mention. Remember, if it were a ''walk to a specific assembly point'', it would be classified as a demonstration – which the police has unconstitutionally declared illegal. Be that as it may, the organisers decided not to carry out a demonstration (which would need Police notification), (although I am informed that the police later retracted this and said that all they need is ‘’ to be informed only’’ ;( Interestingly the police said they had intelligence on the demonstration but still insisted on being informed about it – but that makes me divert from the point),rather they chose to call upon interested parties to walk from their various homes to their diverse work places - period!.The Police/security forces can thus not have their cake and eat it too.


In my view the W2W would have been unproblematic but for two reasons (1) some politicians were forbidden from walking ( see the arrest of Mao, Salaam Musumba, Anywar and Besigye but look out specifically for the discourse between the arresting officers and the suspects which justifies my earlier points). This led to the reaction from the public and the violent rebuttal from the state; (2) some politicians erroneously and without informing the police, started walking in large groups and therefore attracting the concern of the police (see arrest of Nambooze). This also led to a reaction from the public and the aforementioned reaction from the state. Interestingly other politicians like Ekanya and Odonga Otto walked without being stopped. I cannot however say much about the rest of the citizens who were walking to work and either got caught up in the fracas or not. Suffice to mention, they exist.

By singling out specific people, the police committed another unconstitutional act – discrimination – contrary to Article 21(2) which states -
a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin,
tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion
or disability.
(3) For the purposes of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.


In my opinion, stopping a person from walking because he or she is a politician of a specific inclination, is discriminatory. It is the same as preventing people from using or accessing facebook or twitter, blocking some people from accessing radio stations to express their views, preventing people from accessing certain resources, travelling, name it.

It will continue to be difficult for the government to ever justify that they could stop some Ugandans from walking and not others. This is because scores of Ugandans have been walking and will continue walking – be they politicians or not. Some even walked to church as part of their individual protest -which is recognised and not merely allowed by the law and the constitution.


''Walking to Work'', is and remains a personal commitment that one makes and there is no need for mobilization and legally there is no need to inform the police. It is the same way that one chooses to don clothing with specific words, refrain from the consumption of certain foodstuff or drink, tear up SIM cards, avoid to comment on Face book or Twitter, refrain from using buses (Montgomery Bus Boycott 1965), refrain from work (Rukungiri), or wears shades in 'protest' against excessive use of teargas name it - If it were not so, then all people who have been walking to work or elsewhere need to inform the police which is practically impossible. To confirm the above interpretation, the likes of DP President Nobert Mao, FDC President Kizza Besigye, and others, were arrested for disobeying ''lawful orders'', inciting violence and in some cases assaulting a police officer et al and not for walking to work per se. I wait to see what reasons the Attorney General will raise in defence of the above, and what the courts will say in the event that such matter is litigated upon. ( In an earlier piece I discuss the whole issue surrounding whether one may or may not respect a law or in this case a ‘lawful order’.)

(2) ''these politicians are being disingenuous and deceptive, deliberately seeking confrontation with our police in order to provoke them into acts of aggression.''


Let us look at the facts. Person A is refused from walking to work even though it is his constitutional right to do so. He is told that he must access his work place in a way that the police wants. Person A thinks this is unfair and refuses to do so. He is confronted by the police, brutally arrested and in the process suffers bodily injury. Person A’s presumed sympathisers ( more like concerned onlookers to me since we cannot prove their specific political allegiances) get concerned and tell off the police who in return use tear gas, batons and bullets to disperse the crowds. The crowd then runs amok and riotous compelling the police to indiscriminately – once again – shot, l beat and use teargas on anyone in the vicinity. Regardless of whether they are school pupils, babies, patients, mothers, name it. In the same vein, person A is now taken to court and charged with disobeying lawful orders and inciting violence!!


This is obviously just one version of the story constructed from watching you tube and reading twitter as well as the various Ugandan newspapers.


I acknowledge other versions do exist which blame the shooting of innocent people on actions of people like Person A above. It is however trite law, that when establishing liability, there should be a causal link between one’s actions and the resultant reaction. For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained.


The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred before, or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.

I wait to see how this will play out in court- or the Human Rights Commission - if it ever does.

Let me stress however that whether or not the police has been provoked, the fact that it possesses the weapons of coercion means that it has to take extra care in how it uses them. Shooting live bullets at stone welding protesters or clobbering a person on vital and sensitive parts of the body like the head, backbone and neck-) is not reasonable force.


More over we should not forget that this is not the first time it is happening in Uganda ( remember the case of Ramathan Magara when he shot FDC supporters in Mengo, , (see also Nicholas Cage in the movie Con Air).

We should stop excusing wrongs committed by the armed forces on the grounds of provocation. The rationale behind the use of reasonable force is in line with the ideology of civility as expected in any democracy.


The view that the police should respond aggressively 'once provoked' as you state, means that they are an unprofessional, uncivilised, indisciplined institution which will commit acts of aggression, contrary to international humanitarian and criminal law. I choose to believe better or at least hope so although I see this being played out all too often.


I have watched the President of Uganda justify the use of excessive force based on the fact that non obedience to lawful orders is the cause. He even suggests that Besigye had pepper spray which he administered to the police and thus caused them to react in a similar way. I find that so hard to believe. I see no indication in the videos shown that Besigye had pepper spray. Instead I see pictures of hammers and pistol butts being used to break his windows. It is no wonder that Deputy Internal Affairs Minister Kasaijja disagrees with this kind of action.


I shudder to think what happens when we are not looking. It is simply unjustifiable, inexcusable and we should all resoundingly admit this and condemn it in the strongest terms possible.


That is why the President admits that the 'young people' (security offices) made mistakes. If we do not see a change in the way these security offices behave, it should not be a surprise that there is a comparison with past leaders and the way their security forces behaved. Remember the quotation by George Orwell - “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” – ‘Animal Farm’. –


The President asks why Besigye did not allow to be arrested easily or did not allow to follow 'lawful orders'. I know that there are some people who are of a similar opinion, while others say it is the option one can choose in civil disobedience when that person feels that they are unjustifiably treated. The rationale behind civil disobedience is clear. It has been well elaborated in Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham jail.


Some leaders like UPC President Olara Otunnu, FDC Vice President Salaam Musumba, Lord Mayor-elect Erias Lukwago and CP President Ken Lukyamuzi opted to be driven away while others like Anywar, Oguttu, Besigye, and Mafabi etc refused. Indeed such person who refuses to be arrested expects the police to use reasonable force in conducting his/her eventual arrest. Interestingly, they were accused of disobeying the lawful order (not to walk) and for causing unlawful assembly (when people surrounding the police to watch the fracas).

For me that is very problematic – why accuse someone of causing an illegal assembly yet the police knows that blocking a human being from their ordinary course of business will ignite a reaction from others? Why then blame the person whose rights are blocked for causing the reaction by others? Why go a step further and even kill or maim those who do not agree with the reaction of the police or who are minding their own business? Shooting babies, pregnant women, gassing children and hospital patients, bludgeoning others and walloping young men is inexcusable, using pepper spray directly into someone’s eyes and ears is barbaric and totally inhumane and degrading treatment contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution !! Shooting live bullets at unarmed civilians -even without authority- is totally criminal. I do not think there is anything which can justify the 1965 USA Civil rights style or the 1976 style apartheid reaction by our police/security forces. We must unequivocal condemn these actions!

(3)Further several of the leaders of these protests are major players in the oil industry themselves, they have been major beneficiaries of the high fuel prices and know that riots and disruptions will only drive fuel prices (and therefore their profits) higher. If they really cared about fuel prices why are their petrol stations charging even higher prices than their competitors (compare Total Nsambya and Shell Kabalagala). It is only Nandala Mafabi who has started distributing some paraffin at his petrol station, and even then only if you have the required party membership card, the others should follow if they would like us to believe that they are sincere. Charity begins at home!


The above statement raises some of the following thoughts -

(i) All the leaders of the Activists for Change (A4C) group are major players in the oil industry – a fact I find very hard to believe;

(ii) Even if that were true, that the only way in which one can show displeasure is to run out of business in an economic meltdown by charging lower prices?

(iii) The said leaders of A4C are actually making profits inspite of the fact that they are paying taxes on each and litre they sell and in spite of the fact that the cost of living is very high?

(iv) That when they call upon government to intervene in the reduction of fuel prices, they actually do not want government to do so but are more interested in riots which will disrupt the country – a consequence of which is that there will be difficulty in accessing petroleum products – but somehow these leaders of AFC will continue to access fuel and make more profits?

(v) That the determinant for profit making is only the price a petroleum station charges per litre?

(vi) That the desire of the leaders of A4C is not for government to intervene in reducing prices, but to actually do nothing?

I will not attempt to specifically answer the allegation made against Nandala Mafabi because I am not conversant with those specific facts. Evidence of this will be appreciated.


In my humble opinion, I can only reiterate what I said in the aforementioned blog articles that the whole country is suffering from these challenges.


To assume that it is the fault of the opposition alone that we are having these riots and that we should blame the global crisis for what is going on while government sits back and does absolutely nothing but to ruthlessly clobber Ugandans who seek to bring these matters to the table is unfortunate. The prices on almost every commodity in Uganda have risen.


The Kenyan government has done something. I am yet to hear of riots in Rwanda. Can something be done? Yes the government can do something – even if it is a mere symbolic gesture. However, defending government brutality and accusing opposition is and will not be the answer.


Even insinuating that some opposition politicians are not feeling the pinch of the high cost of living but only seek to profit politically and financially is very hard form me to believe. Neither do such ad hominem arguments help in alleviating the status quo -at least that is the way I see it.


I think our government can do better. If the government genuinely wants to guide those who want to demonstrate, it should first of all remove the ban on demonstrations. In the absence of which, it will not be able to justify why it is discriminating against certain people by blocking their freedom of movement in addition to infringing on their freedom of expression.


Secondly, the government should use reasonable force when dealing with those who choose the option of civil disobedience. Our government should not forget the ten-point programme raison d'être for taking over power. It is mandated to treat all people equally and the police is supposed to serve both the opposition as well as those in leadership. The government should also find means of abetting the current socio-economic hardships that the people are facing – that, is the social contract which the government has with its people

….......................

Joseph Okia writes-

The rising fuel costs and food prices are hurting all of us, but I think some of these politicians are really deceiving us that they are fighting for the common man. I think that deception is at the root the violence, we are not just having people "walking innocently" being attached by police, as they would like us to believe. People are deliberately seeking a confrontation to make a point, namely see we are being brutalised (Obama, (or should I say Sarkozy)can you hear us). For the last three decades thousands if not millions of Ugandans have been walking to work unhindered, even if you decided to walk to work on, nobody will stop you, as I speak hundreds of Ugandans are walking to their places of work today. Now to go on television, radio and announce you will be holding a procession (i.e come and join me as I walk) is an entirely different matter. The rights for peaceful assembly and demonstration are enshrined in our constitution, it is the right of every Ugandan. Exercise of those rights however must be done in such a manner that it does not infringe on the rights of others specifically their safety of life and property and their right to carry on their own activities. Under the Police act the police is mandated to ensure exactly that, anyone wishing to carry on an assembly, protest, walk is therefore required to inform police, agree on the route the protest will take and where the final assembly point will be, simple! If anyone would genuinely want to protest against high fuel and food prices all they would have to do is set the date, discuss with police the where and when, agree and hold the protest! These politicians know exactly how it works, but they are deliberately drawing the police into a confrontation by refusing to play by the rules. A good example was the Mabira Forest riots in 2007. Betty Anywar who was leading these protest, informed police, agreed on a route and was given the go ahead plus police protection to carry out the protest, half way through the protest she changed the route and tried to enter the downtown Kampala area knowing very well that that was likely to lead to a confrontation with the police which it did, never mind the rowdy mob that then proceeded to kill indians and loot people's shops. Like I said, these politicians are being disingenuous and deceptive, deliberately seeking confrontation with our police in order to provoke them into acts of aggression. Further several of the leaders of these protests are major players in the oil industry themselves, they have been major beneficiaries of the high fuel prices and know that riots and disruptions will only drive fuel prices (and therefore their profits) higher. If they really cared about fuel prices why are their petrol stations charging even higher prices than their competitors (compare Total Nsambya and Shell Kabalagala). It is only Nandala Mafabi who has started distributing some paraffin at his petrol station, and even then only if you have the required party membership card, the others should follow if they would like us to believe that they are sincere. Charity begins at home!