The gun: deadly weapon in wrong hands

Police and other security agencies have over the last five years come under increasing criticism for being trigger-happy.

It is perhaps a prefect coincidence that the launch of a new policy to oversee fire arms and ammunition in the country came just five days after a plain clothed low-ranking officer of the police force, shot at an unarmed crowd in Port Bell, Luzira, killing at least one.

The incident was captured in its entirety on video footage, which was later aired on nation-wide television.It raised important questions about gun control in Uganda, about who is allowed to own a gun in the country, about what those with guns are supposed and allowed to do with those guns, and what, the possession of firearms in some hands of the public, meant for the rest of the population.

The answers to some of these questions are in a new policy on guns and ammunition in the country released by the Uganda National Focal Point on Small Arms and Light Weapons (NFP). But these concerns are bigger than a new set of rules can contain. As seen from the events that occurred in Luzira, policies that regulate guns in Uganda will be looking for more than just criminals, but also into security organs, if any worthwhile gun control is to be realised.

The new policy sets out to replace old and inefficient laws that regulate firearms in Uganda. The supply of illicit arms allowed for insurgencies like the civil wars fought by The Lord’s Resistance Army and Allied Defence Forces to emerge. Illicit arms have also been used in crime, with 50 per cent of all crime related deaths linked to unlawful guns. The result as seen from the cattle rustling raids in Karamoja and the now real threat of terrorism, calls for urgent concern to deal with the abundance of guns in society.

Address causes of gun proliferation
The NFP’s former coordinator, Richard Nabudere, said in order to solve the problem of gun proliferation, the country first had to solve the problems that lead up to people arming themselves in the first place. Citing the Karimojong, Mr Nabudere said that many people do not feel protected enough by the state, which then pushes them to arm themselves and do the protection themselves.

Other reasons are economic, where disillusioned individuals resort to theft for livelihood and acquire guns to help them steal. The other is political with the case of groups arming themselves to wage armed rebellions in the country. Mr Nabudere says all these causative agents should all be embraced by decision makers so actions to reduce poverty and improve livelihoods, plus improvement of security are taken on board in gun control.

Gun control also raises the question of whether civilians should ever be allowed to own a gun, regardless of what reasons they front. Richard Mugisha, the chairperson of the Uganda Action Network on Small Arms, says ideally, civilians should not be armed. This, he says, is an indictment of the government’s failure to provide security for its people.

But it’s for this very reason that the current NFP co-coordinator, Ahmed Wafuba, says some people should be allowed possess guns. “We all have security needs,” he said. “And government cannot be able to provide specific security needs of every individual. Government cannot only take care of general security concerns. There are for instance people who fall under the category of VIPs (very important persons), {like politicians}, who are vulnerable to attacks on their lives just by the nature of their work. So many Ugandans fall in this category and government cannot afford to provide security for each one of them,” he added.

And the government has come under criticism over this. Mr Mugisha accuses government officials of corruption who end up giving guns to wrong individuals. He particularly points out that many people with political links, like sons and daughters of politicians, have got armed this way. He said government had promised to retrieve these guns last year but has still not done so today.

Firearms in security hands
Security agencies, especially police and the military police, have over the last five years come under increasing criticism for being trigger-happy. This is mainly from shootings at protests, which turn rowdy. The case of police constable Santos Komakech, among others, put this criticism into even sharper focus.

The Police Act allows a police officer to use a firearm in special cases and specifically states these three: against a charged person or a convict who tries to escape from custody, against a person who forcefully rescues another from lawful custody and against a person who forcefully prevents the arrest of either another person or another. Police spokesperson, Asuman Mugenyi, adds that cops are allowed to use fire arms in self-defence, and to secure someone’s life from danger.

Mr Mugisha says members of security officials need to be disarmed at once, retrained on how to handle firearms, and then only those that satisfy necessary conditions be armed again.

Mr Mugenyi however defends the police force, saying the incidents of shootings have only arisen after peaceful protests became rowdy and turned into riots. The police then have to use all possible measures to stop the riot. He however, also notes that every police officer is held accountable for every bullet they fire and if it they shoot an innocent civilian, they are then charged with murder.

Santos Komakech is not the only security official who has indiscriminately fired at unarmed civilians. Lt. Ramathan Magara, in 2006 shot at a crowd at Bulange in Mengo, killing two. As the NFP seeks a new law to effectively control guns and ammunition in the country, these two examples show that more attention should be paid to security agencies, just like it should be paid to the rest of the public.