Rule of law won't skip Bobi Wine

Aug 16, 2018

If Bobi Wine and others are not guilty of the crimes imputed, they will be discharged or acquitted.

By Moses Nuwagaba

In his 1885 book, ‘Law of the Constitution', British Professor Albert Venn Dicey expounded the doctrine of rule of law. He gave it three principles, namely; supremacy of the law, absence of arbitrary power, and equality before the law. The presumption under supremacy of the law is that all must obey the law without exception.

Absence of arbitrary power means that any exercise of authority must be founded in the law or that a person will not be punished except for breach of ordinary law. The principle of equality before the law requires the law to possess an objective quality of application on all persons without fear or favour.

The irony in Uganda is that we think application of rule of law should be restricted to either government officers or persons of little or no political significance. This is unacceptable in countries determined to build sound and durable democratic and other governance systems. Take an example of the recent arrests following the death of one Yasin Kawuma [R.I.P] in a chaotic episode in Arua municipality, in which Kassiano Wadri's supporters pelted a presidential convoy with stones. Public comments on social media and other outlets seem to question the rationale of such arrests. A deeper analysis shows that Ugandans are more concerned with who is arrested than for what offence.

They ask, how can you arrest MPs Kyagulanyi [a.k.a Bobi Wine] or Wadri? How can you take our ‘future president' to prison? They do not bother asking about the thirty four other persons reportedly arrested along with the MPs. This prompts me to ask, is Bobi Wine or Wadri or any other MP above the law? Do they enjoy any qualified privilege outside the precincts of parliament? Or are we saying that for political expediency, we are willing to put up with or even facilitate impunity? Has anyone bothered to estimate the kind of damage that would visit the future Uganda if we allowed this impunity to grow unchallenged? The good thing is that we have a presumption of innocence under the Ugandan constitution.

If Bobi Wine and others are not guilty of the crimes imputed, they will be discharged or acquitted. What I do not agree with is torture. Our constitution bars it because it is inhuman, degrading and it erroneously presupposes guilt on the suspect. It is primitive and should be stopped. But we should not strive to take away powers of police, the directorate of public prosecutions and courts. If an allegation of an illegal firearm is placed on Bobi Wine, then those who think he is innocent can testify as his witnesses or plead as his lawyers or even assist him to pay his legal fees.

But we should not be seen to meddle in lawful police work; for example, in the procedures for search of premises, seizure and storage of exhibits, and their production and identification in court for court inspection and marking. Unless we are saying that we no longer have confidence in the country's criminal justice system. But, again, we can't restore it by breastfeeding impunity.

Lastly, allow me observe that, although human rights and freedoms are inherent and not granted by the state, they were absolutely negated here in Uganda in the Idi Amin era. To-date, Somalia and other countries still yearn for the slightest of these rights. No amount of political ambition should inhibit our clear view of the fact that we skip rule of law at our country's collective peril.

The writer is the deputy RDC Kaberamaido

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