Outlawing political meetings in homes

Peter Kinobe, the current head of the Uganda Law Society says the legal society wants the Constitutional Court to pronounce itself on the interpretation of the Public Order Management Act to harmonise its implementation by different security agencies.

As Uganda prepares to go into full-blown political campaigns ahead of the 2021 general election in which President Museveni is seeking a sixth term in office, Kinobe said this is the right time for the Constitutional Court to pronounce itself on the interpretation of the Act to stop its misinterpretation by security agencies and politicians when it comes to public gatherings.

Perry Aritua, the executive director of Women’s Democracy Network-Uganda told The Independent on Jan.13 that it will be interesting to see how the Constitutional Court interprets this law considering that a decision was reached in 2005 for Uganda to go multi-party.

Most importantly, she adds, Article 29 of the Constitution which is the supreme law of this country gives Ugandans the right to assemble and associate.

When police stops Ugandans from doing so, Aritua says, they are infringing on their rights to assemble and associate.

“It is wrong for the police to use the Public Order Management Act in isolation of the Constitution which is the supreme law in this country,” she says.

Dr. Livingstone Sewanyana, the executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) also told The Independent that the Public Order Management Act, 2013, has no reference to any meeting being held in homes. Sewanyana says whether there are politicians trying to hold meetings in homes or not, the directive is totally unfortunate and out of step.

“It would not only be illegal but it is uncalled for because it does not have any force of law,” he told The Independent.

Vague law blamed

Section 4 (1) of the Public Order Management  Act, 2013, defines a public meeting as a gathering,  assembly, concourse, procession or demonstration of three on public road as defined in the Traffic and Road Safety Act or other public places or  premises wholly or partly open to the air (a) at which the principles, policy, actions or failure of any government, political party or political organisation is registered under any law, are discussed or (b) held to form pressure groups to submit petitions to any person or to mobilise or demonstrate support for or opposition to the view, principles, policy, actions or omissions of any person or body of persons or institution including any governmental administration or government institution.

Subsection 2 excludes certain instances from the definition of the public meeting including; meetings convened and held exclusively for a lawful purpose of any public body, a meeting of members of any registered organisation held for a lawful purpose of the organisation, a meeting of members of a trade union, a meeting for a social, religious, cultural, charitable, education, commercial or industrial purpose, and a meeting of organs of a political party.

But critics of the law say the definition is too vague; in as much as it tries to create exceptions for social and other gatherings, it in effect also regulates them.

This is because in Uganda, considering the fact that when public gatherings by politicians have already been denied by police; it leaves the politicians with little avenue for meeting, communicating and discussion with their fellow constituents or Ugandans.

“Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between a burial ceremony and a political rally and this means that the police may as per the definition have to regulate burials to ensure that politics is not discussed and possibly disperse the mourners,” said Emmanuel Elau in his recent paper, “The Public Order Management Act: the Demise of Freedom of Assembly in Uganda.”

Opposition politicians and human rights activists have always maintained that the spirit in which the law was passed was suspect from the start. They say the intention of the law curtails two fundamental rights; one, public assembly and two, criticism of government or free speech.

Sewanyana says although on paper, Uganda is a multi-party dispensation; the system unfortunately remains a monolithic one which serves the interests of the ruling NRM government.

Sewanyana told The Independent that although many times people refer to the law or the Constitution, what they forget is that they are dealing with a political problem.

“The answers to the political impasse in the country are political and they require mass mobilization, and continuous conscientization among the citizens of the country to demand for their rights.”

****