Regime intolerance has infected many public institutions in Uganda

Though I am aware that most of these students are from poor families, my concern this time is not the merits or demerits of the policy but the suspension of eight students over charges of “inciting violence”, which is the same offence they were arrested for by Police and charged in court.

The environment of intolerance has become pervasive in public institutions and more worryingly, in institutions where tolerance should be the order of the day, such as universities and Parliament.

Some students at Makerere University demonstrated against the policy that requires privately sponsored students to pay at least 60 per cent of their tuition fees in the first six weeks of the semester.

Though I am aware that most of these students are from poor families, my concern this time is not the merits or demerits of the policy but the suspension of eight students over charges of “inciting violence”, which is the same offence they were arrested for by Police and charged in court.

There are two issues here: First, in an academic institution where freedom of conscience, expression, movement, assembly, association, etc., should be fought for, defended and upheld, how can students be suspended for protesting against university authorities’ decisions? Notwithstanding such deplorable excesses as looting shown on TV screens, the university should not take repressive measures that are injurious to student interests.

Secondly, the constitutional provision in Article 28(9) against double jeopardy should be taken heed of in this instance. This provision is to the effect that no one should be tried for the same offence he/she has been tried for in another court or tribunal. If these students are among the students who were arrested by Police and taken to court for “inciting violence” then their suspension for the same offences by Makerere authorities may be violating this constitutional provision.

Any actions which may jeopardise the future of students should be avoided.
The major concern, however, is that the environment of repression and intolerance by the regime is getting absorbed and replicated in various institutions as normal behaviour by those holding power and authority.

The treatment of students at Makerere is a case in point. In another citadel of freedom, Parliament, the Speaker was reported to have banned two journalists from the access to premises of Parliament.

Many journalists and even MPs have been banned from being hosted by radio and TV stations all over the country by the regime and now Parliament, which such affected persons should have a right to petition for a remedy, is doing the same.

Yet the Rules of Parliament elaborately provide for admission of the public and the press into the House and committees and withdrawal and re-admission of strangers during debates of specific issues.

May be the rules of the current Parliament give the Speaker blanket power to ban specific individuals from attending committee proceedings or from visiting MPs in the premises of Parliament! If not, then the other possible source of such power is the overall regime repressive environment that may have percolated into Parliament as well. How sad!

When abuse of power becomes as perversive and “normal” as it now is in Uganda, the public servant becomes the public master. In fact, these days no public officer signs official letters to citizens as “Your Obedient Servant” and rightly so since they are responsible only to themselves, not the public. That is why they liberally help themselves to public resources.

Corruption, just one of the many prevalent forms of abuse of power, is now expected conduct of a “public officer”. Those who are not corrupt are the exception against the rule and when found out they either get ejected from the system or stagnate and eventually leave because of frustration. That is why even those political leaders critical of the regime from inside, must once in a while also behave according to type otherwise the system will eject them.

In other words, to be tolerated, they too must every now and then commit or support some acts of abuse of power. This is the source of the vacillation or inconsistent behaviour that opposes this corruption by so and so but at the same time or later, support the corrupt acts by someone else in their faction or support repression by the regime.

Thus, one time they oppose some aspects of regime acts or policy initiatives as they also support something else inconsistent with their present stance or actions. Their dilemma is that to remain within the regime they must do something that conforms to regime behaviour and norms.

Mr Ruzindana is a former IGG and former MP.
a_ruzindana@yahoo.com