‘It’s possible to have peaceful demonstrations in Kampala’
Mr Sewanyana.
What you need to know:
Following the opposition-led walk-to-work campaign over increasing fuel, food and commodity prices and given the brutal response the move elicited from the state’s security agencies, Risdel Kasasira sought the executive director of Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Mr Livingstone Sewanyana, for his take on the development.
Every time there is a demonstration in Kampala, it is crushed by the Police. Where do you see this ending?
One of the challenges we face with law enforcement is the failure to understand the right of citizens to protest. There is a general perception within the Uganda Police Force that under the Police Act, section 32, anyone wishing to protest has to get authorisation from the Force. What they do not appreciate is that under the same section, it requires notification and police is supposed to only give guidance and support to the demonstrators. The Police seem to think that without their permission, one cannot protest and must be dealt with decisively. The other challenge we have is that the Police in Uganda seem to be implying that excessive force must be used to apprehend or bring people to order. There is limited room for dialogue and persuasion. As a consequence, they become high-handed and this makes the institution look like it’s under siege. The Police should change respect individuals who want to demonstrate. The Force is supposed to be pro-people and whenever it crushes the demonstrations, it distances itself from the people. Under Article 212, which the Police often quotes, they are supposed to maintain law and order, and prevent crime, but the last part requires them to cooperate with the population. The Uganda police is increasingly becoming irresponsible and they protect certain political interests and one can say it’s being perceived as being partisan. Unless there is change of strategy, we are likely to see unnecessary riots in future.
Don’t you think the Police were being pro-active by stopping a situation that would have resulted into violence in the city?
Indeed that’s the thinking of the Force. They think that allowing walk to work campaign is likely to trigger unnecessary processions and demonstrations. That thinking, in my view, is very speculative because the purpose of the “walk-to-work campaign” has already been explicitly spelt out by the organisers. We saw Mr Odonga Otto who walked from his home up to church and he did not cause a scene. In cases where there were confrontations, police created heroes or heroines out of nothing. The thinking by the Police is imaginative and doesn’t help us in any way. It would be much easier if they provided these people the route to use.
Can you separate the genuine cause of the Walk-to-Work campaign and the self interest of politicians to gain political capital from it and use people to cause violence?
It’s not even necessary to separate because human actions are all political. A member of the opposition for goodness sake is supposed to express interest under such situation. But what is important or at stake is the fact that the message is clear - poverty is biting us, prices are prohibitive, fuel prices have skyrocketed and there is need for intervention. It’s not about being in the opposition, it’s about the message they are conveying. If I were a government, I would move very swiftly to the side of the opposition and appreciate their cause and give an assurance that the situation would be addressed. That’s how responsible states address these matters.
Is it the implication of walking that this government fears or is it just overzealousness of the Police?
In my understanding, it was fear that the demonstrations would trigger a possible riot and therefore they needed to nip it in the bud. Fear followed by unnecessary confrontation led people to believe that the situation was going to the dogs.
Is it possible to have a peaceful demonstration in Kampala?
It’s very possible to have a very peaceful demonstration in Kampala if government wants it. I don’t understand why the government fears people’s right to associate. It’s possible. Just give them the directions. Tell them that anyone found disobedient would be brought to order. What is making us to believe that it’s not possible is because we have seen the response of the State. Every time people want to demonstrate, the State creates an impression that people are going to incite violence, disruption of order, vagabonds would take advantage of the situation and loot the city. But I believe that if the government wants the demonstration to be peaceful, it will be peaceful because these people can obey the directions. Why are NRM organised demonstrations always peaceful? Are they any different?
We have had two scenarios where you hear the business community saying peaceful demonstrations have turned into riots and they end up losing their businesses but the demonstrators want to demonstrate in the city centre. What can be done so that the divergent groups can live harmoniously?
I appreciate the concerns of the business community and sentiments they have expressed. But I think those sentiments are not justified. I intend to believe that whenever there are demonstrations, most likely hooligans, vagabonds and others will take charge of the situation. But Section 32 of the Police Act says police should provide guidelines and that mandates them to control the situation and not allow hooligans to steal. If they are in control, the business community will have no fear. But the thinking and the explanation the police give creates an impression that the demonstrators will be incharge and not the Police and therefore their business will be at stake. There is also mutual suspicion to address here that people who trigger violence are sent by the government using its functionaries and agencies to create turmoil. For the business community, they are right to fear but that impression has been deliberately created. All these demonstrations start peacefully and often become violent when police intervenes. Like the other day, Dr Kizza Besigye was walking peacefully with his bag before the Police interrupted him. Then there was confrontation which attracted people to come. I would imagine that if he had been allowed to walk, people would have followed him but they would be ignored. But every time these people start a demonstration, the Police interfere and then violence erupts.
Under what circumstances can the Police intervene to stop demonstrations that are perceived as rights and freedoms?
Freedom to assemble and associate is not absolute. They can actually be restricted on certain grounds - on grounds of public interest, morality, and order. All these are legitimate grounds. In our case, if demonstrators are using abusive language, hauling insults at people, pelting stones at cars and people and attacking business - it could be a justified reason for police to stop demonstrations. And when that happens, police is supposed to warn before taking action. But here they just shoot and tear gas people. But I also appreciate the efforts of the Police to create law and order.
