Terrorism needs to be clearly defined

Oct 16, 2001

THE Suppression of Terrorism Bill 2001, intended to suppress acts of terrorism, imposing tough sentences for terrorists, their sponsors and supporters, is before Parliament.

With John Kakande THE Suppression of Terrorism Bill 2001, intended to suppress acts of terrorism, imposing tough sentences for terrorists, their sponsors and supporters, is before Parliament. Among other things, the Bill seeks to impose a mandatory death sentence for terrorists and any person who aids, abets, finances or supports terrorism. No doubt, the fight against terrorism is one of the biggest security challenges of the Government. So many lives have been lost over the past few years through terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, Parliament should carefully scrutinise the Terrorism Bill, urgent as it is, before passing it. The Bill should not be hurriedly debated and passed. The implications of some of the provisions of the Bill may not be obvious to the non-legal minds, including the majority of the MPs. At times, MPs have passed Bills whose implications they have not carefully studied and understood. Terrorists, the likes of Osama bin Laden and Joseph Kony, need to be vigorously pursued and brought to justice. But terrorism should never be an excuse by Government to suppress legitimate and lawful political opposition. Terrorism must not be used as an excuse to criminalise legitimate activities or witchhunt law-abiding opponents. It is perhaps interesting to recall that in the past even African freedom fighters like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe were in some quarters also regarded as terrorists. Prof. David Robertson, for example, stated in The Penguin Dictionary of Politics that, “In the Third World many former terrorist groups, which began as opponents of colonial regimes, have become the post-colonial government. Only a successful terrorist war defeated the Smith regime in Rhodesia where Robert Mugabe, a terrorist leader, came to power...” At the time (1970s and 1980s), that was how Mugabe and the South African freedom fighters were perceived in the West. One of the problems with the Terrorism Bill is the definition of ‘terrorism’. It (Bill) defines terrorism as the “use of violence or threat of violence with intent to promote or achieve political, religious, economic and cultural or social ends in an unlawful manner and includes the use of violence or threat of violence to put the public in fear or alarm.” This definition is very broad and a lot of people, not necessarily terrorists, could be caught in the net. I agree that use of violence, to achieve political, social or economic goals is unacceptable. But not every person who uses or threatens to use violence to achieve political or social goals should be regarded as a terrorist. A terrorist, to me, is a person or group of persons who intentionally murder, aid, abets, sponsor, plot or attempt to murder innocent and unarmed people, by whatever means, in order to advance their political or social cause. Terrorism must not be perceived from a religious standpoint. In Uganda, Muslims have complained that they have been unfairly blamed for the activities of ADF. Now Muslims in the USA and Europe are experiencing ostracism due the criminal acts of Osama bin Laden. In reality, even non-Muslims have been engaged in terrorism. Joseph Kony is a typical example. During the Obote II regime, there were also terrorist bomb attacks, particularly in Kampala. At the time, these terrorist acts were believed to be the work of UFM guerrillas. Internationally, there are many terrorist groups, which do not involve Muslims, only that their activities have possibly, been downplayed by the western media. There is, for instance, some notorious Jewish terrorist groups - Kach and Kahane Chai, which seek to expel all Arabs from Israel and expand Israel’s boundaries to include the occupied territories and parts of Jordan. They also want strict implementation of Jewish law in Israel. ends

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