The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) has maintained its position that the Public Order Management law should be regulative and not prohibitive on political assemblies and demonstrations.
Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) Chairman, Meddi Kaggwa
At a press Conference on Tuesday, the Commissions Chairperson, Meddie Kaggwa asked the Government to publicise the law that was passed on August 6, 2013 so that the public knows what it entails. He said that the Commission will reject it as a bad law if the recommendations that were suggested after wide consultations with the different stakeholders are not included.
Kaggwa said that he was prompted to speak about the new law because of the wide speculation about it which he said resulted from not being publicised.
“The Commission is concerned about this communication vacuum by government who are the initiators of the original Bill and Parliament which is in possession of the passed Bill,” Kaggwa stated. “It is our sincere hope that the final version of this Bill has incorporated the earlier concerns of the UHRC which basically called for it to regulate and facilitate rather than hinder public demonstrations, Kaggwa said.
He said that the Commission appreciated the objectives of the POMB which initially provided that public order management is a shared responsibility for organisers, participants, local authorities, owners and custodians of the venues for the public meetings and the Police.
However, he noted that the Commission then was opposed a number of clauses which did not comply with the Constitution and international obligations and had pointed this out to Parliament. He said that the new law should take into consideration those concerns.
According to Kaggwa, the right to peaceful assembly is constitutional and is also recognised by regional and international treaties Uganda is signatory to. “the Police have a role to respect, facilitate and protect without discrimination, the enjoyment of people’s rights and freedoms,” he said adding that the Law and the Police should find a correct balance between public order and exercise of rights and freedoms of individuals and groups.
He pointed out that the Commission’s earlier position was that the definitions of political organisations, public place and public meeting had been too broad and ambiguous. This, he said, made it prone to subjective interpretation which could lead to restriction of citizen’s rights to political participation, association and freedom of expression and opinion. The Commission had suggested that these should be restricted to the existing definitions in the Political Parties Organisations Act 2005 and the Penal Code.
The Commission had also pointed out that the powers given to the Inspector general of Police by the proposed law to direct the conduct of public meetings could be arbitrary and prone to subjectivity. That it contravened the Constitutional Court ruling in 2008 which held that Police have regulative and not prohibitive powers.
It had also asked for deletion of a number of clauses in the proposed law which, include the requirement to produce a letter of approval from the proprietor of the venue for the public meeting.
The Commission had also pointed out that although giving notice of a public meeting is not an infringement on the right to peaceful assembly, the seven days rule is stringent and can deter spontaneous processions.
Kaggwa said, however, that the office of the Clerk to Parliament has informed the Commission that 80% of its recommendations had been included in the just passed law. But, according to him, the Commission will only comment on that after it has seen the final version of he law when it is availed to them.
By Anne Mugisa, The New Vision
