Rein in violent acts

Nov 02, 2009

WHEREAS the Constitution is quite clear on the rights to its citizens such as speech, assembly and other rights of expression it is unfortunately equivocal on the attendant responsibilities.

Osmond Atwine

WHEREAS the Constitution is quite clear on the rights to its citizens such as speech, assembly and other rights of expression it is unfortunately equivocal on the attendant responsibilities.

This has bred the mistaken notion that these rights are without limitation and in the pursuit of such rights one’s every action is justifiable.

For years now schools, universities and Kampala have borne the brunt of the violent and criminal acts of persons claiming to be exercising their rights.

From burning of schools by secondary school students to looting and destruction of property by university and city dwellers the practice has reached culture status.

Whilst some credible causes like unemployment and political-economic dissatisfaction have been identified, they do have limitations. For instance, none of them would explain the violent actions of school-going children. Excuses like the Police provocation are ridiculous.

At Makerere, the privately owned staff canteen will be long empty before the first teargas canister is fired. Shops are forced to close or looted at the first opportunity long before the Police arrive. That notwithstanding, I fail to see how tear gas could cause one to loot or indiscriminately attack and destroy vehicles.

These actions have unfortunately not only lacked the necessary condemnation, but have been granted succor by even otherwise responsible leaders.
In one case, organising a boycott against a particular product, one demagogic female representative from the central region clandestinely encouraged ‘the aggrieved’ to throw persons ignoring the boycott out of their taxis and shops.

In another, an equally disillusioned politician branded any person who wasn’t ready to go to Kayunga a ‘betrayer’ in an attempt to prevent businesses functioning and to help the ‘troops’ identify targets. This is invariably followed by the demand by similar persons for the unconditional release of persons arrested, advisably to avoid ‘troop’ depletion.

For instance, would it have been too much for the vociferous Mengo establishment to come out and condemn the actions of their supporters especially as they were committed in what should be the honourable name of their king?
The forcing of innocent civilians to sing his praise, the undressing of women and destruction of property of persons who could not pronounce particular words with a kiganda accent are all acts which should have called for unequivocal condemnation.

Maybe even an apology to the public from the institution or person in whose name these acts were apparently committed, if that does not offend some tradition. These acts must be put to an end. An acceptable way of expressing dissent must be found and an equally reasonable but decisive way of dealing with offenders, including their white-collar leaders, devised.

Somebody has to fight for the innocent members of the public who might not feel equally aggrieved, share or agree with the particular cause or even care; cause that’s their right too. As this duty has been neglected by the leaders of aggrieved groups, I guess we must look elsewhere.
Like self-defense, the defense of property if done with reasonable force affords an accused a complete defense even to the charge of murder.

Let us consider if its reasonable for the Police to shoot at somebody breaking into a shop with the intention to maim. Given, such action may expose some innocent by-standers to risk, but is the intention in itself unreasonable? Guards are often hired with the same instructions.

The President’s instructions, though seemingly militaristic, are unfortunately the sole attempt to guard the victims of these wantonly abused constitutional freedoms. Let us all join him in thinking up a way to rein in this epidemic.

The writer is a legal officer

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});