Who is behind UCC bans on broadcasting of spiritual material?

By Matsiko Godwin Muhwezi

In recent weeks, Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) has been worked into what some have termed "a frenzy of issuing memos" warning media houses, recalling licences and banning several others for broadcasting material considered in breach of set standards.

The first time I saw one of the UCC letters on social media was in relation to a warning to one of the media houses for wanton excesses by some panelist (s)/ guest (s) on a popular show. I surmise that since the show was a popular one, the warning was a paper tiger soon to be jettisoned in the front desk trash can. The most recent of these heavy-handed moves has been on the broadcasting of what is termed as "witchcraft".
 
Religious expression and spirituality are inherently complex and matters of esoteric appreciation when it comes to fine details. The Witchcraft law in place is as archaic as 1957 and its colonial birthday typifies the sort of ideology colonialists had on African culture and practices they considered forlorn to their concept of civilisation.

This law excludes from the definition of witchcraft, what it terms as, "bona fide spirit worship or the bona fide manufacture, supply or sale of native medicines". This ambiguity seems to seep into the actions of UCC in its quest to protect "bona fide worship". Ask yourself, "What does "bona fide" mean, who determines it and what is the yardstick?"

This law has been minimally tested in cases such as the 1997 case of Salvatori Abuki v Uganda, where court frowned upon the vagueness and scope of some of the sections of the law but did not think it unconstitutional warranting an omnibus overhaul.

On the face of it, the unsuspecting public would be made to believe that there is a watertight case and generic appreciation of what "witchcraft" is. This is a moot point. It is no surprise, that UCC cleverly weaved into the context of its actions, references to "fraud", "computer misuse" and "penal laws". Could this suggest that the law regulating spiritual worship is not sufficient to justify such bans? Is it coincidental that armchair commentators have jumped onto the tide demanding that UCC extends its ban to what they termed as "fake" pastors, miracles, churches and the like? I think not.

Uganda like most African contexts has an entrenched accommodation and respect for spiritual expression. There was a time when the leadership of this country moved to turn it into a religious state pushing many preachers and missionaries into caves. The will of the people and the charm of time wore those gloomy days away. Most people you meet will confess to have deferred to a higher power at some point in their lives and if they have turned from piety, it is usually because of disillusionment with the promises from the pulpit, weariness with the routines of the pews, supposed academic enlightenment or defiance against the images of stained glass and spires.

We take cognisance of the fact that previously, at least a couple of top ranked government officials have asked the media to escort them in visiting and appeasing their ancestors; broadcast the details for our consumption but the disdain in whatever form did not lead to bans on the material or calls for resignation of the officers. It bears repeating that the leaders in question were candid and unapologetic not just about their affiliation with ancestral worship but also about their brazen expression of it.

In a country where we by law; acknowledge human kingdoms, chiefdoms and the attendant imperial cultism, the situation of spiritual affiliation and expression is more complex than UCC would like us to believe. The fact that there is a market or audience for such broadcasting in a clattered media environment, does not mean that Ugandans are gullible and naïve, but that they are deliberate about what they choose to believe and consume.

The example of the leaders that I alluded to earlier, the corridor whispers about superstitious practices among the who is who in this country; the veiled ritual practices prevalent in institutionalized religions in our country speak to the fact that spirituality is very much a part of us; for some as a closeted guilty pleasure or concealed knife in battle, for others as a mark of pride and overt extension of their identity. To ferret out such affiliations and sanitize our society to that acceptable practice (whatever it might be), banning some people from expressing their beliefs on narrowed interpretation of their supposed excesses is not an act of justice. 

The Constitution from which government organs derive their regulatory mandate enshrines the power of governance in the people of Uganda. This makes the leaders in government institutions; trustees of the mandate and conscience of their people. The people have entrenched in Article 7 of the Constitution that Uganda shall not adopt a state religion.

It requires a referendum to change this position but rather than rock the boat, some individuals would use state ballast to bore holes in its bilge. Policies and guidelines issued by regulators must always be in conformity with the Constitution. Should the media houses or concerned citizens choose to challenge UCC's Draconian approach, they should have their day in the courts of justice albeit at the taxpayer's expense.

This leaves one plausible plot for this saga.

In the recent past, a group of religious leaders, whose repertoire merits the term "historical" have found issue with what they consider liberal-minded religious waves and gatherings led by "flamboyant" young people driving "air-conditioned cars". The presiding guardians of the vestments can no longer blame poverty and illiteracy which was the stereotype of the "kiwempe movement".

To reclaim the patronage of the vibrant middle-class and elites flocking these gatherings, the "Old Guard" has resorted to micro-regulation by pushing for institutionalisation of worship, amendment of laws and policies such as the infamous, "Draft Policy on Faith Based Organisations".

It would be interesting to find that they have penetrated UCC and are using sympathisers in the system to kick against the pricks by micromanaging broadcasting content. Could UCC be casting a wide net to target a big fish? We can only wait and see what happens next but as an old fable says, "Sometimes, there is no way to hold back the river".

The writer is a lawyer and author