Every citizen deserves and must have the right to annoy their leader at the very least

About a decade ago, President Museveni, was presiding over a youth convening hosted at Makerere University. It was held against the backdrop of Uganda’s 50th Independence celebration, so as you can imagine, patriotism and national identity were the core themes of conversation.

Upon his arrival, as is customary, the participants got up for the anthems. Then something strange happened after “Oh Uganda” and the Jumuiya anthems. A section of attendees started singing “Ekitiibya Kya Buganda”, which attracted rancor from others in attendance.

This was also in the middle of yet another standoff between Mengo and the government of Uganda. In quick succession, there had been the arrest and disappearance of Mengo ministers – including the current Katikkiro, Charles Peter Mayiga – over the heated public debated on the that forever-contentious land law; then the “Buganda/Kayunga” riots and subsequent closure of the kingdom’s CBS radio; and the burning of the royal tombs in Kasubi. Tempers were high, everyone was irritable.

As some stayed up and started to sing the Buganda anthem, others started to sit, murmur, and boo. The sound guys and organizers glanced at each other in puzzlement.  Museveni then barked, “Wacha wewe. Stop that opium!” He then went on to ask how long it would take us if everyone took turns singing our “tribal” anthem.

These were the days before social media had as much influence on public discourse as it does now. So, thankfully, we didn’t descend into debates and quarrels over whether the “opium” was in reference to the singers, the anthem, or the cultural identity – all of which have the potential to inflame and offend.

More recently, I was chairing a meeting and went straight through the agenda items, before one of the participants pointed out that it was important for us to start with a word of prayer.

“Why?” I asked. Not because I am not prayerful but because I – and I assume many of the people in the meeting – had prayed that morning; and even gone as far as dedicating the day’s plans to God’s hands. This meeting was certainly one of those plans, even if prayer wasn’t on the agenda paper.

For a couple of seconds, no one volunteered an answer – I guess because that’s when practices get questioned. Not wanting to draw any more out of the momentary impasse, I asked the proposer to say the prayer, after which we proceeded. Days later, I asked followers on Twitter, “Who started this habit of praying before meetings?” Inevitably, the responses – many of them a little dense – flew in every direction. A friend texted, joking that I actually risked being part of a lawsuit under the Computer Misuse Amendment Act (2022), for offending Christians – if engagement under my tweet continued in the direction it was taking.

Of course, nobody is going to enjoin me in a lawsuit about annoying the feelings of Christians but it tells you how obnoxious and farcical the law is. If you consider the sorts of systemic breakdown that is characteristic of Uganda, you worry that the law in its current injudicious ambiguity, will not be used to find justice but abuse it. Especially because it will primarily be used to protect leaders from getting annoyed – which isn’t a right they should enjoy.

Basically, one doesn’t have to be guilty of a crime but could spend lots of time and resources enduring court processes because the law isn’t clear on anything. The framers of the law know this and that is exactly why they went out of the way to design it how they did.

So, why are those two stories important? Well, because Uganda is what it is, there is always going to be tension about something, and people are always going to want to express themselves in a certain way. How they do it is not always going to be palatable to those in power – but it is not the obligation of citizens to make their leaders comfortable.

Had the law been the architectural fumble of anyone generally agreed to be of little intelligence, it might have passed with little regard. Many perhaps would have argued that the movers lack the kind of intellectual depth to respond – or not – to criticism and insults so they need distasteful laws to protect them. It could have been reasoned as evidence that they are indeed unfit to hold the offices they did.

Mr Rukwengye is the founder, Boundless Minds. @Rukwengye