Police has right over rallies - Kayihura
Jun 02, 2008
THE Constitutional Court last week nullified Section 32(2) of the Police Act, thus allowing anyone seeking to hold a public rally to do so without seeking Police permission. Below is the response by Maj. Gen. <b>Kale Kayihura</b>, the Inspector General of Police, on the ruling.
THE Constitutional Court last week nullified Section 32(2) of the Police Act, thus allowing anyone seeking to hold a public rally to do so without seeking Police permission. Below is the response by Maj. Gen. Kale Kayihura, the Inspector General of Police, on the ruling.
On May 27, the Constitutional Court nullified Section 32(2) of the Police Act, Cap. 303 of the laws of Uganda. Section 32(2) of the Police Act stated that “If it comes to the knowledge of the Inspector General that it is intended to convene any assembly or form any procession on any road or street, or at any place of public resort, and the Inspector General has reasonable grounds for believing that the assembly or procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace, the Inspector General may, by notice in writing to the person responsible for convening of the assembly or forming the procession, prohibit the convening of the assembly or forming of the procession.â€
The Court ruled that “It is hereby declared that Section 32(2) of the Police Act is inconsistent and contravenes Articles 20(1) (2) and 29 (1) (d) of the Constitution and hence, is null and voidâ€.
Following this ruling, leaders and other commentators in the print and electronic media have made statements and analyses of the effect of the ruling that are erroneous and misleading.
Some have stated that, henceforth, the Police has no role in regulating assemblies and demonstrations and that one can now hold an assembly or procession whenever and wherever they please.
As a consequence of this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the ruling, we have found it necessary to make clarifications as to the effect of the ruling.
Police still regulates assemblies
The ruling did not nullify the entire Section 32 of the Police Act. What was nullified was Section 32 (2) of the Police Act, which only relates to the powers of the Inspector-General of Police to prohibit the holding of public assemblies and processions.
The ruling did not affect Section 32 (1) (b) of the Police Act, which empowers the Police to regulate public assemblies and processions.
Section 32(1) (b) of the Police Act, which is still in force, provides, quote, ‘any officer in charge of Police may issue orders for the purpose of regulating the conduct of assemblies, and processions on public roads or streets, or at places of public resort, and the route by which, and the times at which any procession may pass’, unquote.
This means, therefore, that the authority an the duty of the Police to regulate the conduct, location, venues, and times of assemblies and processions is still intact.
In fact, in practice, the orders that the Inspector General of Police issues regulating assemblies and processions relate to the conduct, locations, venues and or times of such assemblies and processions.
In instances where we have objected over the location, venue or times of an assembly or procession, we have always suggested alternatives to the organisers.
Indeed, in the limited cases where we have had disagreements or confrontations, it has been a result of the organisers defying Police orders in regard to the location, venue or time of the event. Otherwise, the Police have not prohibited the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms to assemble or demonstrate.
Authority of Police not affected
The ruling does not affect the authority and duty of the Police, derived from the recently enacted Statutory Instrument 2007, No. 53, in which the Minister of Internal Affairs, in exercise of his powers under Section 35 of the Police Act, declared certain areas of the country ‘gazetted areas’, where it is unlawful for groups or persons to hold a public assembly or procession without a permit from the Inspector General of Police.
In other words, the ruling does not touch, let alone, nullify Section 35 of the Police Act.
Members of the public will recall recent events, such as the infamous ‘Mabira Forest’ riots of April 12, 2007, the consequent loss of life and destruction of property, and the widespread apprehension caused locally and internationally.
Indeed, it is to guard against such tragic eventualities, as well as to protect the rights and freedoms of others, that the Minister of Internal Affairs found it necessary to promulgate the document.
We have to clarify that the Statutory Instrument is consistent with, and derives its constitutionality from, Article 43 of the Constitution, which defines ‘general limitations on fundamental and other human rights and freedoms’.
Article 43(1) provides that “In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms of others, or the public interest.â€
We, for instance, have to protect the travelling public against possible violent demonstrators who routinely pelt motorists with stones, or arsonists who burn vehicles and attack travellers during such events like in the case of the Mabira riots.
We also have to protect the business community in the central business district of Kampala and other urban centres against constant disruption to business activities and loss of property as was the case on various occasions in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
We have to protect the livelihoods of market vendors and taxi operators, drivers and conductors, as well as the passengers, from the disruptions any rally held in taxi parks is likely to cause.
Clearly, the organisers of demonstrations do not have superior rights and freedoms over the other members of society. It is for this reason that, rather than prohibit the holding of such assemblies or processions, the Police suggest alternative venues that are more suited for the purpose, to hold the assemblies and processions.
And contrary to certain selective reading and interpretation of Section 35 of the Police Act by some commentators, the Statutory Instrument does not apply to all kinds of meetings and assemblies.
Section 35(7) of the Police Act clearly states that: ‘Nothing in this section shall apply to assemblies wholly held inside a building or convened bona fide for religious observance, by the Government or the administration of a district, for witnessing sports or games or primarily for social purposes.
Provision consistent with other democratic countries
We would like to point out that what is provided in the Statutory Instrument is consistent with similar legislation in other ‘functioning democracies’, such as the United Kingdom, South Africa and many states in the US.
As we shall demonstrate in subsequent communication on the subject, the laws in these countries are quite elaborate in management of public order, and in many instances, more stringent than ours.
And in spite of the defiance of Police orders by some organisers of assemblies and processions, the Police has consistently demonstrated the commitment to defend and promote the rights to assemble and demonstrate, sometimes to a fault. A case in point is the authorisation for the infamous Mabira demonstration last year.
We call upon organisers of public assemblies and processions to be mindful of duties of the Police enshrined in Article 212 of the Constitution, viz, to protect life and property, maintain law and order, and to prevent and detect crime.
During demonstrations, these duties are not only confined to protecting organisers and participants of the events, but also to the members of the public affected by these demonstrations, as well as public security and peace.
Happily, the Constitutional ruling does not compromise the fundamental role of the Police. We would like to assure the public that we shall continue to diligently discharge this mandate, contrary views notwithstanding.
We further call upon organisers of such functions to work closely and cooperate with the Police to achieve a win-win situation because confrontation with the Police can only be counter-productive and futile.
On May 27, the Constitutional Court nullified Section 32(2) of the Police Act, Cap. 303 of the laws of Uganda. Section 32(2) of the Police Act stated that “If it comes to the knowledge of the Inspector General that it is intended to convene any assembly or form any procession on any road or street, or at any place of public resort, and the Inspector General has reasonable grounds for believing that the assembly or procession is likely to cause a breach of the peace, the Inspector General may, by notice in writing to the person responsible for convening of the assembly or forming the procession, prohibit the convening of the assembly or forming of the procession.â€
The Court ruled that “It is hereby declared that Section 32(2) of the Police Act is inconsistent and contravenes Articles 20(1) (2) and 29 (1) (d) of the Constitution and hence, is null and voidâ€.
Following this ruling, leaders and other commentators in the print and electronic media have made statements and analyses of the effect of the ruling that are erroneous and misleading.
Some have stated that, henceforth, the Police has no role in regulating assemblies and demonstrations and that one can now hold an assembly or procession whenever and wherever they please.
As a consequence of this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the ruling, we have found it necessary to make clarifications as to the effect of the ruling.
Police still regulates assemblies
The ruling did not nullify the entire Section 32 of the Police Act. What was nullified was Section 32 (2) of the Police Act, which only relates to the powers of the Inspector-General of Police to prohibit the holding of public assemblies and processions.
The ruling did not affect Section 32 (1) (b) of the Police Act, which empowers the Police to regulate public assemblies and processions.
Section 32(1) (b) of the Police Act, which is still in force, provides, quote, ‘any officer in charge of Police may issue orders for the purpose of regulating the conduct of assemblies, and processions on public roads or streets, or at places of public resort, and the route by which, and the times at which any procession may pass’, unquote.
This means, therefore, that the authority an the duty of the Police to regulate the conduct, location, venues, and times of assemblies and processions is still intact.
In fact, in practice, the orders that the Inspector General of Police issues regulating assemblies and processions relate to the conduct, locations, venues and or times of such assemblies and processions.
In instances where we have objected over the location, venue or times of an assembly or procession, we have always suggested alternatives to the organisers.
Indeed, in the limited cases where we have had disagreements or confrontations, it has been a result of the organisers defying Police orders in regard to the location, venue or time of the event. Otherwise, the Police have not prohibited the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms to assemble or demonstrate.
Authority of Police not affected
The ruling does not affect the authority and duty of the Police, derived from the recently enacted Statutory Instrument 2007, No. 53, in which the Minister of Internal Affairs, in exercise of his powers under Section 35 of the Police Act, declared certain areas of the country ‘gazetted areas’, where it is unlawful for groups or persons to hold a public assembly or procession without a permit from the Inspector General of Police.
In other words, the ruling does not touch, let alone, nullify Section 35 of the Police Act.
Members of the public will recall recent events, such as the infamous ‘Mabira Forest’ riots of April 12, 2007, the consequent loss of life and destruction of property, and the widespread apprehension caused locally and internationally.
Indeed, it is to guard against such tragic eventualities, as well as to protect the rights and freedoms of others, that the Minister of Internal Affairs found it necessary to promulgate the document.
We have to clarify that the Statutory Instrument is consistent with, and derives its constitutionality from, Article 43 of the Constitution, which defines ‘general limitations on fundamental and other human rights and freedoms’.
Article 43(1) provides that “In the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms of others, or the public interest.â€
We, for instance, have to protect the travelling public against possible violent demonstrators who routinely pelt motorists with stones, or arsonists who burn vehicles and attack travellers during such events like in the case of the Mabira riots.
We also have to protect the business community in the central business district of Kampala and other urban centres against constant disruption to business activities and loss of property as was the case on various occasions in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
We have to protect the livelihoods of market vendors and taxi operators, drivers and conductors, as well as the passengers, from the disruptions any rally held in taxi parks is likely to cause.
Clearly, the organisers of demonstrations do not have superior rights and freedoms over the other members of society. It is for this reason that, rather than prohibit the holding of such assemblies or processions, the Police suggest alternative venues that are more suited for the purpose, to hold the assemblies and processions.
And contrary to certain selective reading and interpretation of Section 35 of the Police Act by some commentators, the Statutory Instrument does not apply to all kinds of meetings and assemblies.
Section 35(7) of the Police Act clearly states that: ‘Nothing in this section shall apply to assemblies wholly held inside a building or convened bona fide for religious observance, by the Government or the administration of a district, for witnessing sports or games or primarily for social purposes.
Provision consistent with other democratic countries
We would like to point out that what is provided in the Statutory Instrument is consistent with similar legislation in other ‘functioning democracies’, such as the United Kingdom, South Africa and many states in the US.
As we shall demonstrate in subsequent communication on the subject, the laws in these countries are quite elaborate in management of public order, and in many instances, more stringent than ours.
And in spite of the defiance of Police orders by some organisers of assemblies and processions, the Police has consistently demonstrated the commitment to defend and promote the rights to assemble and demonstrate, sometimes to a fault. A case in point is the authorisation for the infamous Mabira demonstration last year.
We call upon organisers of public assemblies and processions to be mindful of duties of the Police enshrined in Article 212 of the Constitution, viz, to protect life and property, maintain law and order, and to prevent and detect crime.
During demonstrations, these duties are not only confined to protecting organisers and participants of the events, but also to the members of the public affected by these demonstrations, as well as public security and peace.
Happily, the Constitutional ruling does not compromise the fundamental role of the Police. We would like to assure the public that we shall continue to diligently discharge this mandate, contrary views notwithstanding.
We further call upon organisers of such functions to work closely and cooperate with the Police to achieve a win-win situation because confrontation with the Police can only be counter-productive and futile.