Silencing voices of opposition

Bobi Wine trigger

The stage of such arrests was set after the November 2020 demonstrations which followed the incarceration of former music superstar-turned politician Robert Kyagulanyi aka Bobi Wine. The popularity of the youthful political debutante and his National Unity Platform (NUP) party appears to have caught the ruling party and Museveni by surprise.

Since Bobi Wine’s popularity became obvious, and even after being declared winner of the 2021 general elections, Museveni’s government has continued to arrest perceived supporters of NUP across the country for largely political reasons. Many are languishing in detention, waiting for their day in court.

With protests outlawed under the Public Management Act, the Uganda government seems to be resorting to coercive force to silence those who pose a challenge to Museveni’s hold on power or dare criticize the members of the First Family even when they hold public offices.

Political commentators view the arrest of Kakwenza as an indicator of increasing intolerance to alternative views by those opposed to Museveni’s government as opposition grows. They contrast Museveni’s current open intolerance to opposition to the 1990s and early 2000s when he was riding on tolerance and freedom of expression card.

Although Museveni often acted either indifferent or amused; saying anyone can abuse him all they want, he often appeared determined to shield his family members from similar attacks. And commenters appeared to respect that; until his family members entered the political fray. Museveni’s family members who currently occupy prominent public offices include his son, Gen. Kainerugaba, Museveni’s  wife; Education Minister Janet Museveni, and his influential brother; Gen. Caleb Akandwanaho aka Salim Saleh.

Dr. Mwambutsya Ndebesa of Makerere University’s History Department believes that a person in any public office should be seen to exercise tolerance because they are bound to be criticised. He likens the criticism of those in public offices to teachers in schools who are often advised to ignore students that nickname them.

“The moment you become a prominent public figure like General Muhoozi is now, you expect people to talk about you including your lifestyle,” argues Dr Ndebesa, adding that; “It is normal. After all what hasn’t Muhoozi heard in the political public discourse in contemporary Uganda?”

He cites the unsavory language that President Museveni uses to describe those opposed to him, including calling them pigs, idiots, parasites, primitive, etc.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s live political radio talk shows known as ekimeezi (ebimeeza in plural) were popular. On such kimeeza radio programmes, politicians and political activists would openly criticise the ruling NRM government and President Museveni without fear of reprisal. Newspaper editorial cartoonists enjoyed a field day of lampooning Museveni.

When the bimeeza programmes proved a headache to the government, the ruling NRM government through Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) banned them. With absence of ebimeeza radio talk shows, the spread of internet segment of social media has provided alternative platforms for expression.

Like Kakwenza, many Ugandans take to social media to vent their frustration with service delivery and the state of affairs in the country. But sometimes, the government through its coercive force will not allow them.

Uganda is today rated not free by the Freedom House in its annual study of political rights and civil liberties worldwide. The 2021 elections campaign period saw unprecedented attacks on journalists including those working with online publications; especially those who reported on the political opposition. The attacks were orchestrated by security forces.

After the 2016 elections, the government of Uganda through parliament passed the over-the-top (OTT) tax for access to social media sites. When the tax was enforced, several Ugandans protested the OTT tax by evading with use of VPNs.  Recently, government switched goal posts as regards, to this tax and instead taxed the use of internet.

Critics say since the internet tax increases the cost of using the internet, it limits its availability as a platform for spreading information and expressing political views. But dissenting views on social media continue to grow to the extent that government established a Citizens’ Governance Interaction Centre which responds to queries raised by Ugandans through social media.

It is this social media that Kakwenza used to criticise the president and his son. Museveni’s attitude towards social media is that it is used to tell lies.

When in July 2021 Museveni ordered for arrest of social media users who announced him dead, he called the issue an “idiotic problem” which “wastes people’s time”.

But he ordered the security forces to arrest the person/s sharing such information and  three days after Museveni issued this order, police paraded a one Jamilu Ssekyondwa from Luweero for circulating the fake news of the president’s death. Two more people were arrested over the same.

Some analysts say the arrest of Kakwenza for alleged verbal attacks on the first son has hallmarks of an impatience and intolerance. Unlike Museveni who has been abused by Ugandans countless times and mostly kept his cool, his son has acted fast and firmly. He is cheered by his army social media fans who argue that Kakwenza had stretched his freedom of expression by abusing others.

Other victims

The other signs of intolerance are cited in the way NRM treats its members with dissenting views. In early 2011, the country was treated to the drama of what NRM called “rebel MPs”. In 2017, in the lead up to the removal of the presidential age limit, the NRM legislators that voted against the removal were disciplined. Some were forced to apologise for holding alternatives views that were contravening the official party line.

In April 2017, Dr Stella Nyanzi, a vocal academic who uses writing as a form of protest, was arrested on allegations of abusing President Museveni and his family.  She was charged with two counts including cyber harassment contrary to section 24 (1)(2)(a) of the Computer Misuse Act 2011 and offensive communication contrary to section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act 2011.

According to Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act 2011 on offensive communication, “Any person who willfully and repeatedly uses electronic communication to disturb or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person with no purpose of legitimate communication whether or not a conversation ensues commits a misdemeanour and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-four currency points or imprisonment not exceeding one year or both.” Twenty-four currency points is an equivalent of Shs480, 000 which, as expected, is not a hefty penalty. But that is why the security agents resort to torture to ensure no criticism against President Museveni and his family.

****