Police acting correctly to keep public order
In the recent past, debate and commentaries in the media and other fora have questioned the role of the Police in managing public order.
In the recent past, debate and commentaries in the media and other fora have questioned the role of the Police in managing public order.
This debate has mainly been a result of the several publicised incidents of civil disobedience by political activists, and the police response thereof.
In a democracy, the public has the right to question the means by which security organisations enforce the law.
The Police have been accused of using excessive force to disperse unlawful assemblies. Some critics have charged that the police are interpreting the law selectively and acting illegally in stopping certain public assemblies.
I have observed that many of these reactions and comments are not based on informed positions. It is imperative to put across the correct position as regards public order management.
The Uganda Police Force, under Article 212 of the Constitution, is the custodian of law and order, and of the public interest where there is any conflict. This responsibility cannot be ceded to any other authority.
The mandate of the Police is further broken down into enforceable items by the Police Act (Cap 303) of our laws. In the sphere of maintaining law and order, Section 22 of the Police Act empowers the Police to regulate all public assemblies. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Police to put in place guidelines for regulating such assemblies.
The reason why such structure is necessary is to ensure that all users of shared resources, like public roads or even space, enjoy their freedoms without interference from others.
Therefore, the Police must centrally be involved in the identification of mutually acceptable locations for public meetings.
That requirement, in itself, cannot be described as an infringement of any person’s rights.
In fact, such interaction also helps authorities prevent potentially explosive situations, like having two opposing rallies at the same venue at the same time, or in close proximity to each other. It also enables the Police to arrange in advance for the provision of security, traffic and crowd control, and other measures necessary to ensure a peaceful assembly.
Contrary to misconceptions peddled by some political leaders, the law does not give special dispensation to political rallies over other assemblies. Political rallies are subject to regulation by Police and organizers must observe these procedures for reasons described above.
Whenever these procedures are overlooked or deliberately flouted, there is bound to be a breakdown of law and order. We, the Police, would be failing our mandate if we do not enforce the law without fear or favour.
On the matter of minimal force in dispersing unlawful assemblies, I have personally been at the forefront of discouraging the use of tear gas as a first option in dispersing unruly crowds. But I have also observed that, during public disturbances and riots, there are delinquent elements that resort to stoning motorists and policemen, in addition to looting and engaging in other acts of lawlessness.
Whereas the Police endeavour to apprehend suspects, and have indeed arrested several of them in recent disturbances, there are instances where it becomes necessary to disperse riotous mobs intent on causing mayhem.
The internationally accepted means of dispersal are baton charge where there are sufficient number of officers, and the use of non-lethal tear gas when a baton charge is not practicable.
It is only in extreme cases that live ammunition is used. This would still be a legally acceptable option where there is widespread destruction of property and threats to life.
I personally regret that innocent persons have been caught up in the wafts of tear gas. But the fault here, I believe, lies squarely with the leaders who unreasonably defy lawful instructions, thereby exposing even persons who are not party to their issues, to the resultant action by Police in restoring order.
It is irresponsible of any leader to incite the citizenry against the law enforcement authorities by calling for public assemblies without following the laid-down procedure.
There have been many other public rallies called by political by parties, where the parties have followed the procedure and cooperated with police. These rallies have gone on without incident.
There will be instances where the Police will advise against holding a rally at some locations, which are considered unsuitable for public meetings.
The Police arrive at these decisions basing on experience and substantive intelligence that those specific rallies, if held in these locations, would be prejudicial to other users of the location and inconvenience many others.
One does not need to be a genius to appreciate that the Constitutional Square and Nakasero Market, located in the Central Business District of Kampala City, are not suitable venues for pubic rallies.
Apart from the constrictions of space, an assembly of that proportion in these locations would create traffic congestion and inconvenience most motorists in the city.
In addition, the business community has, in the past, suffered immense losses whenever criminal elements take advantage of the rallies to create chaos in order to loot and damage property.
It is for these reasons, and at the specific request of their custodians/management, that the Police have discouraged and consequently stopped any public assemblies in these places.
The Police have consistently demonstrated the willingness to work with the organizers to identify mutually acceptable venues, and the Police have proceeded to provide security for such meetings.
If, say, we were to allow the preferred method of certain activists, where one wakes up and decides to hold a public rally wherever he or she wishes in the misplaced notion that it is their constitutional right, then we would experience the collapse of law and order in our society That would be anarchy; and not democracy.
This debate has mainly been a result of the several publicised incidents of civil disobedience by political activists, and the police response thereof.
In a democracy, the public has the right to question the means by which security organisations enforce the law.
The Police have been accused of using excessive force to disperse unlawful assemblies. Some critics have charged that the police are interpreting the law selectively and acting illegally in stopping certain public assemblies.
I have observed that many of these reactions and comments are not based on informed positions. It is imperative to put across the correct position as regards public order management.
The Uganda Police Force, under Article 212 of the Constitution, is the custodian of law and order, and of the public interest where there is any conflict. This responsibility cannot be ceded to any other authority.
The mandate of the Police is further broken down into enforceable items by the Police Act (Cap 303) of our laws. In the sphere of maintaining law and order, Section 22 of the Police Act empowers the Police to regulate all public assemblies. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Police to put in place guidelines for regulating such assemblies.
The reason why such structure is necessary is to ensure that all users of shared resources, like public roads or even space, enjoy their freedoms without interference from others.
Therefore, the Police must centrally be involved in the identification of mutually acceptable locations for public meetings.
That requirement, in itself, cannot be described as an infringement of any person’s rights.
In fact, such interaction also helps authorities prevent potentially explosive situations, like having two opposing rallies at the same venue at the same time, or in close proximity to each other. It also enables the Police to arrange in advance for the provision of security, traffic and crowd control, and other measures necessary to ensure a peaceful assembly.
Contrary to misconceptions peddled by some political leaders, the law does not give special dispensation to political rallies over other assemblies. Political rallies are subject to regulation by Police and organizers must observe these procedures for reasons described above.
Whenever these procedures are overlooked or deliberately flouted, there is bound to be a breakdown of law and order. We, the Police, would be failing our mandate if we do not enforce the law without fear or favour.
On the matter of minimal force in dispersing unlawful assemblies, I have personally been at the forefront of discouraging the use of tear gas as a first option in dispersing unruly crowds. But I have also observed that, during public disturbances and riots, there are delinquent elements that resort to stoning motorists and policemen, in addition to looting and engaging in other acts of lawlessness.
Whereas the Police endeavour to apprehend suspects, and have indeed arrested several of them in recent disturbances, there are instances where it becomes necessary to disperse riotous mobs intent on causing mayhem.
The internationally accepted means of dispersal are baton charge where there are sufficient number of officers, and the use of non-lethal tear gas when a baton charge is not practicable.
It is only in extreme cases that live ammunition is used. This would still be a legally acceptable option where there is widespread destruction of property and threats to life.
I personally regret that innocent persons have been caught up in the wafts of tear gas. But the fault here, I believe, lies squarely with the leaders who unreasonably defy lawful instructions, thereby exposing even persons who are not party to their issues, to the resultant action by Police in restoring order.
It is irresponsible of any leader to incite the citizenry against the law enforcement authorities by calling for public assemblies without following the laid-down procedure.
There have been many other public rallies called by political by parties, where the parties have followed the procedure and cooperated with police. These rallies have gone on without incident.
There will be instances where the Police will advise against holding a rally at some locations, which are considered unsuitable for public meetings.
The Police arrive at these decisions basing on experience and substantive intelligence that those specific rallies, if held in these locations, would be prejudicial to other users of the location and inconvenience many others.
One does not need to be a genius to appreciate that the Constitutional Square and Nakasero Market, located in the Central Business District of Kampala City, are not suitable venues for pubic rallies.
Apart from the constrictions of space, an assembly of that proportion in these locations would create traffic congestion and inconvenience most motorists in the city.
In addition, the business community has, in the past, suffered immense losses whenever criminal elements take advantage of the rallies to create chaos in order to loot and damage property.
It is for these reasons, and at the specific request of their custodians/management, that the Police have discouraged and consequently stopped any public assemblies in these places.
The Police have consistently demonstrated the willingness to work with the organizers to identify mutually acceptable venues, and the Police have proceeded to provide security for such meetings.
If, say, we were to allow the preferred method of certain activists, where one wakes up and decides to hold a public rally wherever he or she wishes in the misplaced notion that it is their constitutional right, then we would experience the collapse of law and order in our society That would be anarchy; and not democracy.