‘Safe houses’ are not constitutional
Jan 28, 2003
THE Inspector General of Police, Major General Katumba Wamala, acted professionally and honourably.
Midweek Opinion with John Kakande
THE Inspector General of Police, Major General Katumba Wamala, acted professionally and honourably. He respectfully acted on the order issued by Judge Yorokamu Bamwine and produced in the High Court the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) official Engineer Pascal Gakyaro, to explain reasons he was being detained.
In the past security officers, even of low rank, have not respected judicial orders, which has exposed the courts to ridicule. Security agencies are supposed to enforce law and order. Security officers need to be exemplary and law-abiding. It saddens, therefore, when some police or army officers exhibit disrespect for judicial orders and laws.
Courts have had serious problems to enforce orders or criminal summons against security officers as well as some financially or politically influential individuals. Police themselves have at times failed to prosecute security officers and other politically well-connected individuals. There are stories in Kabalagala about a tycoon who routinely beats up his workers, but Police have told complainants that they can’t charge him!
Katumba Wamala’s statement that he did not know where Eng. Gakyaro was being detained up to the time he was handed over to the CID was intriguing. It confirmed Gakyaro was not detained at a Police station. Presumably he was in an ungazeted ‘safe house’. The use of these safe houses came to prominence at the height of the anti-terrorism campaign a few years ago. The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) protested detention of suspects in safe houses. Security agencies argued that ‘terrorist’ suspects were too dangerous to be held in police cells. After the defeat of urban terrorism, it was hoped detention of suspects in safe houses would also cease.
It now appears ‘safe houses’ have become a permanent feature of our security establishment although they are not gazetted detention centres. Some former detainees have claimed that safe houses are torture centres. The problem is that ‘safe houses’ are secret and cannot be accessed freely by UHRC to investigate allegations of torture. Detention of suspects in safe houses violates Article 23 of the Constitution. In effect it is illegal and a human rights violation by state security agencies. Safe houses are unnecessary. If police cells are not capable of holding suspects perceived to be dangerous, why doesn’t government establish and gazette high security centres?
I strongly believe it is wrong for security agencies to re-arrest suspects who are either acquitted or released on bail by the courts. There have been several cases were security agents have re-arrested suspects at the court gates or even within court premises. If a suspect stays on remand for three to four years, it is reasonable that court frees him or her regardless of the charges brought against him. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is illegal and clearly unconstitutional to remand suspects for ages. It is a human rights abuse to use treason as ‘holding charge’. Re-arresting suspects at court gates undermines the integrity and authority of the Judiciary. Implicitly, this undermines Constitutionalism and rule of law.
THE Inspector General of Police, Major General Katumba Wamala, acted professionally and honourably. He respectfully acted on the order issued by Judge Yorokamu Bamwine and produced in the High Court the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) official Engineer Pascal Gakyaro, to explain reasons he was being detained.
In the past security officers, even of low rank, have not respected judicial orders, which has exposed the courts to ridicule. Security agencies are supposed to enforce law and order. Security officers need to be exemplary and law-abiding. It saddens, therefore, when some police or army officers exhibit disrespect for judicial orders and laws.
Courts have had serious problems to enforce orders or criminal summons against security officers as well as some financially or politically influential individuals. Police themselves have at times failed to prosecute security officers and other politically well-connected individuals. There are stories in Kabalagala about a tycoon who routinely beats up his workers, but Police have told complainants that they can’t charge him!
Katumba Wamala’s statement that he did not know where Eng. Gakyaro was being detained up to the time he was handed over to the CID was intriguing. It confirmed Gakyaro was not detained at a Police station. Presumably he was in an ungazeted ‘safe house’. The use of these safe houses came to prominence at the height of the anti-terrorism campaign a few years ago. The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) protested detention of suspects in safe houses. Security agencies argued that ‘terrorist’ suspects were too dangerous to be held in police cells. After the defeat of urban terrorism, it was hoped detention of suspects in safe houses would also cease.
It now appears ‘safe houses’ have become a permanent feature of our security establishment although they are not gazetted detention centres. Some former detainees have claimed that safe houses are torture centres. The problem is that ‘safe houses’ are secret and cannot be accessed freely by UHRC to investigate allegations of torture. Detention of suspects in safe houses violates Article 23 of the Constitution. In effect it is illegal and a human rights violation by state security agencies. Safe houses are unnecessary. If police cells are not capable of holding suspects perceived to be dangerous, why doesn’t government establish and gazette high security centres?
I strongly believe it is wrong for security agencies to re-arrest suspects who are either acquitted or released on bail by the courts. There have been several cases were security agents have re-arrested suspects at the court gates or even within court premises. If a suspect stays on remand for three to four years, it is reasonable that court frees him or her regardless of the charges brought against him. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is illegal and clearly unconstitutional to remand suspects for ages. It is a human rights abuse to use treason as ‘holding charge’. Re-arresting suspects at court gates undermines the integrity and authority of the Judiciary. Implicitly, this undermines Constitutionalism and rule of law.