Human rights report unfair to the Police
Jul 30, 2008
FOLLOWING the arrest and detention of Betty Nambooze, Medard Lubega Ssegona and Charles Peter Mayiga, the Police issued a statement to the effect that the trio had close links with rebel movements seeking to destabilise the country and that they had attempted to acquire weapons.
By Mariam Wangadya
FOLLOWING the arrest and detention of Betty Nambooze, Medard Lubega Ssegona and Charles Peter Mayiga, the Police issued a statement to the effect that the trio had close links with rebel movements seeking to destabilise the country and that they had attempted to acquire weapons.
The Uganda Human Rights Commission dispatched a team to investigate the circumstances of their arrest and detention.
The report quotes Article 52(1) of the Constitution which states that: “The commission shall investigate at its own initiative or on a complaint made by any person or group of persons against the violation of any human rights.â€
It is good to be vigilant in the performance of our functions and I commend the investigation team on the speed at which they discharged their duty and the subsequent report they produced.
However, unless evidence to the contrary is produced, Nambooze, Lubega and Mayiga were arrested in their individual capacities as suspects in commission of criminal offences. They were not arrested in their capacity as Mengo officials.
Their arrest is not out of the ordinary. Many people have been arrested before and they were never a subject of our investigations. These include Tom Kyahurwenda (Buhaguzi). James Kakooza (Kabula), Othieno Akika (West Budama South), Vincent Nyanzi (Busujju), Naava Nabagesera, Jim Muhwezi (Bujumbura), Dr. Stephen Chebrot (Tingey), Capt Mike Mukula, several district chairmen, civil servants, powerful academicians and peasants.
Nambooze may have been temporarily separated from her one-year-old baby but so have several other women prisoners and suspects. Why the overreaction on Nambooze?
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, all persons are equal before and under the law and no person should be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.
The Uganda Human Rights Commission serves both prominent and the underprivileged people. It is unacceptable for the commission to have special preference for a particular category of people.
The Police Force has a mandate under Article 212 of the Constitution to “protect life and property, preserve law and order, prevent and detect crime.†In the performance of these duties, the Force needs the support and encouragement of everybody. The charges against the trio are serious. If true, the Police was justified in stopping their actions to protect the lives and property of innocent Ugandans. Every action that appears to undermine their efforts in investigating these crimes ought to be avoided. We should perhaps stop at calling for the release of the suspects on bond or their immediate production in court. Suspected criminals have rights. But so do innocent victims of their crimes. Law enforcement is part and parcel of the protection and promotion of human rights. It is impossible to enforce the law without inconveniencing some people. Policemen and women often pay with their lives in the course of securing the country. National peace and security are inseparable from human rights. The Police should be condemned sparingly.
Article 43 of the Constitution provides that: “In the enjoyment of rights and freedoms, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.â€
The report does not mention any attempt to interview the Police spokesperson. I think she or the Inspector General of Police ought to have been contacted for their side of the story.
The writer is a member of the Uganda Human Rights Commission
FOLLOWING the arrest and detention of Betty Nambooze, Medard Lubega Ssegona and Charles Peter Mayiga, the Police issued a statement to the effect that the trio had close links with rebel movements seeking to destabilise the country and that they had attempted to acquire weapons.
The Uganda Human Rights Commission dispatched a team to investigate the circumstances of their arrest and detention.
The report quotes Article 52(1) of the Constitution which states that: “The commission shall investigate at its own initiative or on a complaint made by any person or group of persons against the violation of any human rights.â€
It is good to be vigilant in the performance of our functions and I commend the investigation team on the speed at which they discharged their duty and the subsequent report they produced.
However, unless evidence to the contrary is produced, Nambooze, Lubega and Mayiga were arrested in their individual capacities as suspects in commission of criminal offences. They were not arrested in their capacity as Mengo officials.
Their arrest is not out of the ordinary. Many people have been arrested before and they were never a subject of our investigations. These include Tom Kyahurwenda (Buhaguzi). James Kakooza (Kabula), Othieno Akika (West Budama South), Vincent Nyanzi (Busujju), Naava Nabagesera, Jim Muhwezi (Bujumbura), Dr. Stephen Chebrot (Tingey), Capt Mike Mukula, several district chairmen, civil servants, powerful academicians and peasants.
Nambooze may have been temporarily separated from her one-year-old baby but so have several other women prisoners and suspects. Why the overreaction on Nambooze?
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, all persons are equal before and under the law and no person should be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.
The Uganda Human Rights Commission serves both prominent and the underprivileged people. It is unacceptable for the commission to have special preference for a particular category of people.
The Police Force has a mandate under Article 212 of the Constitution to “protect life and property, preserve law and order, prevent and detect crime.†In the performance of these duties, the Force needs the support and encouragement of everybody. The charges against the trio are serious. If true, the Police was justified in stopping their actions to protect the lives and property of innocent Ugandans. Every action that appears to undermine their efforts in investigating these crimes ought to be avoided. We should perhaps stop at calling for the release of the suspects on bond or their immediate production in court. Suspected criminals have rights. But so do innocent victims of their crimes. Law enforcement is part and parcel of the protection and promotion of human rights. It is impossible to enforce the law without inconveniencing some people. Policemen and women often pay with their lives in the course of securing the country. National peace and security are inseparable from human rights. The Police should be condemned sparingly.
Article 43 of the Constitution provides that: “In the enjoyment of rights and freedoms, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.â€
The report does not mention any attempt to interview the Police spokesperson. I think she or the Inspector General of Police ought to have been contacted for their side of the story.
The writer is a member of the Uganda Human Rights Commission