There is disheartening news that one of Uganda’s cultural heritage centers – the National museum will soon be no more. It has been reported in national newspapers that the home of the only remaining national museum will be demolished to allow the construction of a 60-storey office block for the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry. What a travesty.
But it's no surprise that government officials can take such a decision given that the Uganda museum is one of those important national institutions that have been neglected for rather to long. The structure that houses the museum was designed by a German architecture Ernst May more than 60 years ago to suit the purpose of the institution.
Thefore, apart from being a national historical monument , the museum houses a collection of historical artifacts and is a source of information on well over 650 cultural heritage sites dotted across the country. What this means is that the national museum is a center of learning about life, culture and heritage of the people of Uganda.
Dr Ephraim Kamuhangire, the former commissioner for Museum and Monuments and curator of the now dilapidated national museum is one of many Ugandans who are disappointed that nothing has been done to upgrade the institution-the only remaining national reference center on our cultural heritage.
Dr. Kamuhangire has noted that due to lack of funding , the Uganda museum has lost its place as the best in the East and Central Africa region. Uganda still needs this institution and every effort should be made by all concerned parties to protect its existence for the benefit of the present and future generations.
The idea of demolishing this historical monument must be scrapped and in its place plans are made to upgrade the museum to capture and reflect the country’s cultural and socio-economic transformation over the years. All advanced societies have preserved these institutions because of their unique and important functions in collecting scientific, educational and methodological works that seek to enhance the sense of national identity .
Government must therefore, support the role of the Uganda national museum to increase and preserve our cultural heritage, from the nation´s earliest settlement through to the modern day.
Its at the national museum that the past meets the present.
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY MONITOR
EDITOR
ADVOCATE OF THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA
msserwanga@monitor.co.ug
msserwanga@yahoo.com
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
+256772434677
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING
MS
Millions of Ugandans have turned out to cast their votes in yet another historic general election that is likely to change the political landscape of the country. The presidential campaigns have been innovative and unprecedented as the candidates embraced the fast changing dynamics in communication especially the social networks.
Just last week the first ever mayoral debate was successfully organsised by Monitor Publications Limited and Nation Television (NTV) at Serena hotel in Kampala. Even the most critical opposition candidates at all levels can attest the fact that overall ,the campaigns have been peaceful thus far.
Now the day of reckoning has arrived and as the Electoral Commission readies to announce the results and the eventual winners, let the people’s will prevail. The Ugandan people have made their choices and their decisions at the polls should be honoured.. Elections are a celebration of every citizen's fundamental right to vote and must be respected by all.
It's encouraging that the campaign process has been conducted in a calm and peaceful manner . we now call on all political actors, particularly the candidates to maintain a high level of integrity in the electoral process, and respect the responsibility of managing the elections by the Electoral Commission.
It’s was also prudent for the Electoral Commission, the Uganda Police Force, and Uganda Media Council to generated agreed guidelines and codes of conduct for law enforcement officials and the media during the elections. It is hoped that strict adherence to the governing laws of the country will ensure that the outcome of the electoral process is legitimate and acceptable by all parties and citizens.
But the Electoral Commission, should ensure transparency in the way the votes are counted and the results released to the public. They should ensure that the ballot boxes are not tampered with especially after the votes are tallied at the polling centers.
The results should be released expeditiously in order not to create any environment for suspicion. And all Ugandans should be prepared to accept the outcome of the polls whether our respective candidates have won or not . In other words the t the country should remain united whatever the out come of the polls.
Millions of Ugandans have turned out to cast their votes in yet another historic general election that is likely to change the political landscape of the country. The presidential campaigns have been innovative and unprecedented as the candidates embraced the fast changing dynamics in communication especially the social networks.
Just last week the first ever mayoral debate was successfully organsised by Monitor Publications Limited and Nation Television (NTV) at Serena hotel in Kampala. Even the most critical opposition candidates at all levels can attest the fact that overall ,the campaigns have been peaceful thus far.
Now the day of reckoning has arrived and as the Electoral Commission readies to announce the results and the eventual winners, let the people’s will prevail. The Ugandan people have made their choices and their decisions at the polls should be honoured.. Elections are a celebration of every citizen's fundamental right to vote and must be respected by all.
It's encouraging that the campaign process has been conducted in a calm and peaceful manner . we now call on all political actors, particularly the candidates to maintain a high level of integrity in the electoral process, and respect the responsibility of managing the elections by the Electoral Commission.
It’s was also prudent for the Electoral Commission, the Uganda Police Force, and Uganda Media Council to generated agreed guidelines and codes of conduct for law enforcement officials and the media during the elections. It is hoped that strict adherence to the governing laws of the country will ensure that the outcome of the electoral process is legitimate and acceptable by all parties and citizens.
But the Electoral Commission, should ensure transparency in the way the votes are counted and the results released to the public. They should ensure that the ballot boxes are not tampered with especially after the votes are tallied at the polling centers.
The results should be released expeditiously in order not to create any environment for suspicion. And all Ugandans should be prepared to accept the outcome of the polls whether our respective candidates have won or not . In other words the t the country should remain united whatever the out come of the polls.
Friday, February 11, 2011
MPS: Court erred in interpretation of the law
As we approach the final lap in what has truly been a grueling campaign period , the Constitution Court has thrown the proverbial spanner in the works by declaring the nominations of members of parliament who did not resign their seats before joining parties other than those for which they were elected MPs unconstitutional.
A legal assessment of this judgment handed out by a Coram of 5 judges of the Constitutional court shows that their justices applied the strict and literal interpretation rule when they considered the meaning of article 83(I) (g) (h) of the constitution.
The article provides that a member of Parliament shall vacate his or her seat in parliament if the person leaves the party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to Parliament to join another party or to remain in parliament as an independent member.
This particular provision is a recent addition to the constitution to cater for the complex issues of independents and errant MPs who cross party-lines in the course of their tenure. Indeed in the 8th parliament there are some 70 MPs who fall in this category and are directly affected by the Constitution Court’s ruling.
But with due respect to the learned judges of the court, their interpretation of the meaning and application of article 83 was right in some respects but flawed in others. For instance the judges are right to hold that MPs who cross from one party to another must first vacate the seats for which they were elected as per the provisions of the constitution. This principle of the law also applies to independent MPs who have since joined parties of their choice before vacating their seats as independents. But because the term of the 8th parliament has come to an end and because the law (the constitution judgment is Law until otherwise quashed/reversed by a superior court) the errant MPs can only be compelled to refund the emoluments earned from the date when they illegally crossed party lines.
On the other hand, however, the Court erred in law when it extended the application of article 83 to the nominations of MPs for the next parliament.
It’s clear from the wording of the provisions of article 83 that it’s application is limited to the term of every seating parliament and therefore cannot be extended to the next Parliament which is even not yet constituted.
The candidates for seats in the next parliament therefore need not to resign as per article 83 as declared by court.' Otherwise how can one resign from a parliament that is not yet in existence?
In fact by operation of the law once a member of Parliament is nominated to contest seats in the next parliament their term as MPs should automatically expire. The sad thing, though, is that the law is silent about the transition period between nominations and when the next Parliament is inaugurated in May.
The learned judges again erred in law by interpreting article 83 in isolation of other provisions of the constitution especially article 72 which allows people to contest for elective positions on any political party platform they so wish.
One of the core principles of constitutional interpretation is that the constitution should be ready and interpreted as a whole. I hope the Supreme Court will revisit some of the contradictions in the Constitution Court ruling and settle the issues in clear terms.
Writer is Journalist and Advocate of the High Court of Uganda
msserwanga@gmail.com
A legal assessment of this judgment handed out by a Coram of 5 judges of the Constitutional court shows that their justices applied the strict and literal interpretation rule when they considered the meaning of article 83(I) (g) (h) of the constitution.
The article provides that a member of Parliament shall vacate his or her seat in parliament if the person leaves the party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to Parliament to join another party or to remain in parliament as an independent member.
This particular provision is a recent addition to the constitution to cater for the complex issues of independents and errant MPs who cross party-lines in the course of their tenure. Indeed in the 8th parliament there are some 70 MPs who fall in this category and are directly affected by the Constitution Court’s ruling.
But with due respect to the learned judges of the court, their interpretation of the meaning and application of article 83 was right in some respects but flawed in others. For instance the judges are right to hold that MPs who cross from one party to another must first vacate the seats for which they were elected as per the provisions of the constitution. This principle of the law also applies to independent MPs who have since joined parties of their choice before vacating their seats as independents. But because the term of the 8th parliament has come to an end and because the law (the constitution judgment is Law until otherwise quashed/reversed by a superior court) the errant MPs can only be compelled to refund the emoluments earned from the date when they illegally crossed party lines.
On the other hand, however, the Court erred in law when it extended the application of article 83 to the nominations of MPs for the next parliament.
It’s clear from the wording of the provisions of article 83 that it’s application is limited to the term of every seating parliament and therefore cannot be extended to the next Parliament which is even not yet constituted.
The candidates for seats in the next parliament therefore need not to resign as per article 83 as declared by court.' Otherwise how can one resign from a parliament that is not yet in existence?
In fact by operation of the law once a member of Parliament is nominated to contest seats in the next parliament their term as MPs should automatically expire. The sad thing, though, is that the law is silent about the transition period between nominations and when the next Parliament is inaugurated in May.
The learned judges again erred in law by interpreting article 83 in isolation of other provisions of the constitution especially article 72 which allows people to contest for elective positions on any political party platform they so wish.
One of the core principles of constitutional interpretation is that the constitution should be ready and interpreted as a whole. I hope the Supreme Court will revisit some of the contradictions in the Constitution Court ruling and settle the issues in clear terms.
Writer is Journalist and Advocate of the High Court of Uganda
msserwanga@gmail.com
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Optic fibre Internet project is long overdue
Optic fibre Internet project is long overdue
BY MOSES SSERWANGA
One of the major challenges Uganda is facing today is the slow speed of the Internet or absence of the service in most parts of the country. Unlike Rwanda where the authorities are determined to ensure that our neighbours become an ICT hub in the region, in Uganda no serious efforts are being made to challenge this competition. The UN has established that there is a direct link between the spread of Internet and economic growth. The International Telecommunication Union found that every 1 per cent increase in Internet penetration results into a $593 (about Shs1.4million) increment to GDP per capita.
Indeed its very encouraging that one of our leading universities - Makerere - through the Faculty of Computer Science has taken the lead to not only train students but also develop software solutions that can be suitably deployed to address many technological challenges that face the country. It can thus be argued that Makerere’s contribution to the development of the ICT industry will to a great extent help Uganda to remain at the same level or even exceed other players in the region like Rwanda. It should also be noted that Rwanda is set to establish “on-line Campuses” throughout the country to benefit an estimated 50,000 students in higher institutions of learning.
This will not only allow almost all students in Rwanda to attain higher education but it will also significantly reduce on the cost of education. There are a number of bottlenecks to Uganda’s development of the ITC industry and the major one being access to the Internet.
The optic fibre cable project being implemented by a Chinese company - Huawei Technologies Company - has been slowed down by disagreements over cost and quality of work . These issues need to be sorted out because its the fibre cable network that will allow Internet providers to spread these vital services to most parts of the country. It’s claimed that Rwanda paid to Korea Telecom and Horizon $38 million to cover a distance of 2,300km as opposed to $61 million paid by Uganda for 2,100km.
Yet according to Rwanda ICT Framework presented by the Rwandan Minister in the Office of the President in charge of Science and Technology, Prof. Romain Murenzi, the country’s National Broadband was to cost $66 million for a distance of 2,300km and not $38 million.
Therefore, Rwanda is spending $66 million, out of which $38 million is for equipment and the rest for civil works. On the other hand, according to the agreement between Uganda and Huawei, government is investing $61 million for a distance of 2,118.6km including the fibre construction with 28 transmission sites and two protective rings. The component will also have access to 28 government departments and network security system. The other investment of $44 million, which brings the total cost in Uganda to $106 million, is for E-Government infrastructure.
Looking at the Uganda-NBI project Investment Comparison analysis with that of Rwanda, its clear that the unit price of the Rwandan project is a meagre variation and yet the Uganda project covers more components. These development projects which are vital for the provision of essential services to the majority Ugandans need to be supported to make us competitive in the global market.
It is encouraging that after wide consultation involving the ICT ministry, the national information technology authority, MPs and Huawei Technologies, members of the parliamentary committee on information technology have okayed government to go ahead with the second phase of the Optic fibre project to speed up the process of extending these services to the countryside where the majority of Ugandans live. The Committee chairperson, Mr Nathan Igeme Nabeta has rightly noted that the more time the cable lies incomplete the more Uganda will lose .
The writer is a journalist and an advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
+256 772 43 46 77
BY MOSES SSERWANGA
One of the major challenges Uganda is facing today is the slow speed of the Internet or absence of the service in most parts of the country. Unlike Rwanda where the authorities are determined to ensure that our neighbours become an ICT hub in the region, in Uganda no serious efforts are being made to challenge this competition. The UN has established that there is a direct link between the spread of Internet and economic growth. The International Telecommunication Union found that every 1 per cent increase in Internet penetration results into a $593 (about Shs1.4million) increment to GDP per capita.
Indeed its very encouraging that one of our leading universities - Makerere - through the Faculty of Computer Science has taken the lead to not only train students but also develop software solutions that can be suitably deployed to address many technological challenges that face the country. It can thus be argued that Makerere’s contribution to the development of the ICT industry will to a great extent help Uganda to remain at the same level or even exceed other players in the region like Rwanda. It should also be noted that Rwanda is set to establish “on-line Campuses” throughout the country to benefit an estimated 50,000 students in higher institutions of learning.
This will not only allow almost all students in Rwanda to attain higher education but it will also significantly reduce on the cost of education. There are a number of bottlenecks to Uganda’s development of the ITC industry and the major one being access to the Internet.
The optic fibre cable project being implemented by a Chinese company - Huawei Technologies Company - has been slowed down by disagreements over cost and quality of work . These issues need to be sorted out because its the fibre cable network that will allow Internet providers to spread these vital services to most parts of the country. It’s claimed that Rwanda paid to Korea Telecom and Horizon $38 million to cover a distance of 2,300km as opposed to $61 million paid by Uganda for 2,100km.
Yet according to Rwanda ICT Framework presented by the Rwandan Minister in the Office of the President in charge of Science and Technology, Prof. Romain Murenzi, the country’s National Broadband was to cost $66 million for a distance of 2,300km and not $38 million.
Therefore, Rwanda is spending $66 million, out of which $38 million is for equipment and the rest for civil works. On the other hand, according to the agreement between Uganda and Huawei, government is investing $61 million for a distance of 2,118.6km including the fibre construction with 28 transmission sites and two protective rings. The component will also have access to 28 government departments and network security system. The other investment of $44 million, which brings the total cost in Uganda to $106 million, is for E-Government infrastructure.
Looking at the Uganda-NBI project Investment Comparison analysis with that of Rwanda, its clear that the unit price of the Rwandan project is a meagre variation and yet the Uganda project covers more components. These development projects which are vital for the provision of essential services to the majority Ugandans need to be supported to make us competitive in the global market.
It is encouraging that after wide consultation involving the ICT ministry, the national information technology authority, MPs and Huawei Technologies, members of the parliamentary committee on information technology have okayed government to go ahead with the second phase of the Optic fibre project to speed up the process of extending these services to the countryside where the majority of Ugandans live. The Committee chairperson, Mr Nathan Igeme Nabeta has rightly noted that the more time the cable lies incomplete the more Uganda will lose .
The writer is a journalist and an advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
+256 772 43 46 77
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGEMENT ON INDEPENDENTS
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGEMENT ON INDEPENDENTS
BY MOSES SSERWANGA
Problem is the learned judges of the Constitutional Court, have made a strict and literal interpretation of article 83(I) (g) (h) which provides that a member of parliament shall vacate his or her seat in parliament.
(g) if the person leaves the party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to parliament to join another party or to remain in parliament as an independent member
Much as this article is a recent addition to our constitution to take care of the complex issues of independents, It doesn’t specify whether it's application is limited to the present or the next parliament. In my view article 83 is limited to the current parliament and not the next .
And if that's the case , my interpretation is that this article doesn’t apply to nominations for seats in the next parliament - people are free to switch alliances or move from one political party to another or more still stand as independents because they are contesting for seats in another parliament and not the present one. The candidates for seats in the next parliament therefore need not to resign as per article 83 as declared by court.
The learned judges again have erred in law by interpreting article 83 in isolation of other provisions of the constitution especially article 72 which allows people to contest for elective positions on any political party platform they so wish.
One of the core principles of constitutional interpretation is that the constitution should be ready and interpreted as a whole.
Another issue is that the judges have not addressed themselves to the transition period between nomination and swearing in of the next parliament.
Writer is Journalist and Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
BY MOSES SSERWANGA
Problem is the learned judges of the Constitutional Court, have made a strict and literal interpretation of article 83(I) (g) (h) which provides that a member of parliament shall vacate his or her seat in parliament.
(g) if the person leaves the party for which he or she stood as a candidate for election to parliament to join another party or to remain in parliament as an independent member
Much as this article is a recent addition to our constitution to take care of the complex issues of independents, It doesn’t specify whether it's application is limited to the present or the next parliament. In my view article 83 is limited to the current parliament and not the next .
And if that's the case , my interpretation is that this article doesn’t apply to nominations for seats in the next parliament - people are free to switch alliances or move from one political party to another or more still stand as independents because they are contesting for seats in another parliament and not the present one. The candidates for seats in the next parliament therefore need not to resign as per article 83 as declared by court.
The learned judges again have erred in law by interpreting article 83 in isolation of other provisions of the constitution especially article 72 which allows people to contest for elective positions on any political party platform they so wish.
One of the core principles of constitutional interpretation is that the constitution should be ready and interpreted as a whole.
Another issue is that the judges have not addressed themselves to the transition period between nomination and swearing in of the next parliament.
Writer is Journalist and Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
Saturday, January 29, 2011
KILLING BABOONS A BLOW TO ECO_SYSTEM
Early in the week Daily Monitor published images of some 30 baboons, which were killed by the Luwero District vermin control officials. This was after the District authorities made a unilateral decision to carry out the mass extermination of the animals which were said to be destroying food crops in Kamira sub-country .
But according to the Uganda Wild Life Act , the ownership of every wild animal and wild plant existing in its wild habitat in Uganda is vested in the government on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the people of Uganda.
The law cited above provides that an animal can only be declared a vermin on the advice of the executive director of the Uganda Wild Life Authority (UWA) and a declaration has to be published in the Gazette and local newspaper having wide circulation in the areas affected.
And where the animals are of value, like in the case of the Luwero baboons, the executive director is mandated under the law to advise the local communities and recommend the appropriate methods for taking the animals away.
Apparently, the enthusiastic Luwero district vermin control officers did not seek technical guidance from the UWA before they killed the more than 30 baboons .
They also did not take into consideration an agreement between UWA and the districts of Luweero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola which is meant to provide guidance on how the mentioned areas can benefit from the wildlife in their areas. It’s amazing how some of our public officers are in a hurry to devise knee-jerk solutions to complex issues.
A UWA spokesperson has stated and rightly so, that although baboons are vermin and can be destructive, killing them indiscriminately is against the law. It’s prudent that the public should support professionals who are charged with the work of ridding society of dangerous animals but they should execute their duties in accordance with the law.
Uganda is privileged to have a variety of wildlife including baboons, which certainly add to the biodiversity of our country’s eco-system. Instead of killing these animals, the vermin control officers should have coordinated with the UWA to have them relocated or exported to countries which don’t have the opportunity to own such wildlife. The country would in the end have generated revenue for the sustainable use of our wildlife for the benefit of both the present and future generations.
The writer is an advocate of the igh Court of Uganda
anmd Editor of Sunday and Saturday Monitor
can be reached on
+256 772 43 46 77
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga@yahoo.com
But according to the Uganda Wild Life Act , the ownership of every wild animal and wild plant existing in its wild habitat in Uganda is vested in the government on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the people of Uganda.
The law cited above provides that an animal can only be declared a vermin on the advice of the executive director of the Uganda Wild Life Authority (UWA) and a declaration has to be published in the Gazette and local newspaper having wide circulation in the areas affected.
And where the animals are of value, like in the case of the Luwero baboons, the executive director is mandated under the law to advise the local communities and recommend the appropriate methods for taking the animals away.
Apparently, the enthusiastic Luwero district vermin control officers did not seek technical guidance from the UWA before they killed the more than 30 baboons .
They also did not take into consideration an agreement between UWA and the districts of Luweero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola which is meant to provide guidance on how the mentioned areas can benefit from the wildlife in their areas. It’s amazing how some of our public officers are in a hurry to devise knee-jerk solutions to complex issues.
A UWA spokesperson has stated and rightly so, that although baboons are vermin and can be destructive, killing them indiscriminately is against the law. It’s prudent that the public should support professionals who are charged with the work of ridding society of dangerous animals but they should execute their duties in accordance with the law.
Uganda is privileged to have a variety of wildlife including baboons, which certainly add to the biodiversity of our country’s eco-system. Instead of killing these animals, the vermin control officers should have coordinated with the UWA to have them relocated or exported to countries which don’t have the opportunity to own such wildlife. The country would in the end have generated revenue for the sustainable use of our wildlife for the benefit of both the present and future generations.
The writer is an advocate of the igh Court of Uganda
anmd Editor of Sunday and Saturday Monitor
can be reached on
+256 772 43 46 77
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga@yahoo.com
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
MAKING SENSE OF PROPOSED MEDIA LAWS
BY MOSES SSERWANGA
The government is proposing a new regime of laws in amendments to the existing media laws- that will add more restrictions to the already delicate media environment in Uganda. Legal experts and media practioners see the new proposed media legal regime as being targeted to beat the media into line ahead of the 2011 elections.
Despite its acclaimed popularity, the NRM government has always been wary of free and independent media. But for all the government’s unconstitutional maneuvers to curtail free speech, the draconian proposed amendments should not even be given a hearing even in our national parliament .
This is for the simple reason that government’s resolve to beat the media into submission does not rhyme with democratic values. It also against the universally accepted legal and moral principles that allow individuals the inherent right to freedom of speech and expression. The same principles apply to the media because a free press is very important in a democratic society to guard against the excesses of the state or government presided over by elected leaders.
Constitutional and media experts have argued that if the amendments are passed as drafted ,they would restrict freedom of expression in Uganda and impede the ability of journalists and media outlets to fulfill their democratic roles by imposing unnecessarily onerous registration and licensing requirements on both the print and electronic ,broadcasting media. The Constitution of Uganda in articles 27,41, provides that the people of Uganda have the right to express themselves freely and access information. These rights as stated in the constitution are inherent to the individual and cannot be granted by the state.
But the proposed laws contradict these provisions of the constitution. For instance under the proposed amendments , newspapers are required to apply for annual licensing . But worse still, Media Council , the regulatory body , is given broader powers to withdraw licenses at will if it deems the actions of the media house to “undermine national security, stability, or unity,” and are “against Uganda’s foreign relations, and the country’s economy”.
These are contestable constructs that would have to be defined clearly and narrowly if they are to pass the constitutional test for imposing limitations on right to freedom of expression. Requiring the annual licensing of newspapers by the Media Council puts undue burden on the profession and on the industry, thereby restricting the public’s broader right to freedom of expression and access to information.
.
And giving the Media Council the absolute discretion to define those terms as a condition for renewal of a license or as a basis for penal action would make the regulator an absolute determinant of what should constitute media content. This amounts to a “substantive restriction” on freedom of expression as stated in constitutional and supreme courts leading precedents.
In the land mark Supreme Court case of of Charles Onyango- Obbo and Andrew Mujuni Mwenda vs. Attorney General (AG) court stated: @ It’s difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed , a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions.” Court emphasized the fact that press freedom and the individual’s right to express ideas and thoughts freely cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. This means that the anticipated danger to national security and public order should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched.
However it should be noted that in Uganda and with the new proposed amendments , the government continues to treat press freedoms as a matter of strategic public bluster and not a constitutional guarantee. This is because the state functionaries are averse to public criticism because of the sometimes, irrational and, in some cases, undemocratic manner in which they run government.
But the primary objective of freedom of expression is to empower people to participate in decisions that affect their livelihood. And this empowerment cannot be over-emphasised especially now that we are heading into the general elections. This is especially true in the context of the forthcoming elections where candidates seeking elective national political offices should address the issues that are central to the Ugandan public.. In other words, freedoms of speech, expression and the media are intended to promote accountability and transparency in governance.
In the same Supreme Court case cited above , the learned judges cemented this principle of the law by stating that “ in a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.
But a democracy means that there will always be two or more competing views- political and otherwise- to allow those who are governed the freedom to make a free choice on how they should be led. The media is just a vehicle by which these democratic ideas are conveyed. The proposed amendments therefore go against the wisdom of the court judgment in the Onyango Obbo case.
And on the balance, government has the largest share of the media platform in this country. By having a national radio and television network with the widest reach, and owning majority shares in the Vision Media Group that boasts of two daily newspapers, regional publications s and a string of radio stations, the government far outcompetes its political rivals in having its political philosophies and policies disseminated to the masses.
In any case, governments all over the world can only sell their policies to the public and the media for support. They can force public or pro-government media to toe the official line to manufacture consent but they cannot force the audience to buy those policies wholesale.
And one wonders why government is pushing for the amendments just months to the general elections when there is already a broad legal regime to govern the media in this country. The Press and Journalists Act and the Electronic Media Act are laws which provide for regulation of journalists in practice and set ethical standards for their conduct. These laws were enacted after consultations with all the stakeholders who included among others , government officials members of parliament on the parliamentary legal committee, the civil society organizations , the public, journalists and managers of media houses.
The existing legal framework governing the media laws also put in place disciplinary procedures and measures that can be taken against errant media and journalists. The problem is that the state has done very little to enforce these laws to ensure fairness on part of the media and the aggrieved public.
And when they have chosen to apply the provisions of the law the enforcing agencies, in this case , the Media and the Broadcasting Councils have done so -albeit selectively and on political instigation. And their decisions have been generally outrageous. In the recent two cases of State vs Red Pepper in the Gaddafi-Tooro Queen Mother case and suspension of journalists and closure of radio stations following the September riots- the accused persons and management of the closed radio station where never given a hearing. Thus the principle of fair trial and rule of natural justice which allows for an accused person to be heard before an impartial tribunal were never followed. All this was in fragrant violation of the national constitution.
No wonder there is been continued agitation since the bloody September riots for the opening of the Central Broadcasting Station and Buganda privately owned radio. Government on October 22 agreed to re-open the radio without any conditions after almost 11 months since it was closed down. The closing of the station led to loss of jobs for many young people and deprived the public of virtual information needed to make informed decisions. The country does not need to go back to these dark days since neither party in the CBS case has gained anything in the radio’s being off air for this long.
The law should be employed to protect the public good and not political ambitions of a few in leadership. The are also other laws that impact on the work of journalists in a negative way and could be invoked by the state especially in the coming general elections. These include the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Access to Information Act. Under the Anti- Terrorism Act, there is a lacuna( legal gap) about the definition of who a ‘terrorist’ and ‘publication’ is . This lacuna in the law is a cause of serious concern among the media professionals in the country, largely because many government officials including President Museveni have in the past openly equated journalists to rebels or labeled them government enemies.
But more disturbing is that the law hands out the death penalty to journalists found guilty of publishing or airing information or material deemed to promote terrorism. The death penalty which is still protected by the country’s constitution, leads to self censorship among journalists who may fear to be convicted for alleged publication of material that the state may deem to be promoting terrorism.
On the other hand the Access to Information Act , unnecessarily gives enormous powers to a public servant not to release information in the custody of the state if he/she deems it to be prejudicial to ‘national security’. And there are already cases where this power has been abused. In the case of Charles Mwanguhya and Angelo Izama vs State and now being heard in the constitutional court, government refused to release the oil contracts after the two journalists applied for the information under the provisions the Act. The government officials invoked the powers given to them under the Act to decline the release of information by citing ‘threats to national security’. Some of these laws therefore, need to be revisited and the repugnant sections repealed.
It’s also encouraging that the Uganda Newspaper Editors and Proprietors Association has rightly and promptly objected to the state machination’s to gag the media. In their recent statement the association has called for dialogue between the government and the media to allow the regulations that will not impinge on the fundamental rights of press freedom and the freedoms of free speech and expression.
It’s a fact that journalism is no easy task at the best of times- especially when questions are raised about the workings of journalists and the capacity of the media especially those outside the realm of government- to provide accurate, reliable and timely information on the conduct of those who are in charge of running the government.
The role of the media in a young democracy like Uganda is very crucial in highlighting and exposing the wrongs and excesses of government officials and the widespread corruption in public service.
And while media firms and journalists’ groups like UNEPA should promote higher professional standards among journalists, it’s also the duty of the press as the 4th estate to expose abuse of power by those who are in authority. This the watchdog function, which is a true democratic mandate of the media.
It’s now an accepted international legal norm that a free media is essential for creation of democratic societies. This is a universal and fundamental right.
It is pertinent to point out at this stage that the government maneuvers to gag the media through legal and other means is inconsistent with the rapidly changing media technologies. Its strategy to target formal media ignores the new media which has proved far more widespread than earlier believed.
The advent of digital reporting, text news messages and global phenomena of the dot-com journalism and citizen journalism has changed the speed and reach of news.
The total newspaper daily print run in Uganda is less than 100,000 copies. But there are six million mobile telephone subscribers in the country. Any news that government would wish printed can easily be circulated over the phone to six million Ugandans.
But in Uganda the government continues to treat press freedoms as a matter of strategic public bluster and not a constitutional guarantee. This is because the state officials are averse to public criticism. This is because of the way some state operatives employ unconstitutional means when dealing with journalist or where individual rights are freedoms are abused.
Cases have been recorded where security officials harass, beat and lock- up journalists for a mere spoken or written word. The ideal would be for government to use its vast media outlets to make counter arguments or clarifications, or even follow legal channels to counter the media.
The government has a legion of well paid media and public relations advisers and strategists it can use to counter the alleged falsehoods peddled by the “errant” private publications through public sensitisation and provision of the correct information without resorting to macho maneuvres against journalists.
It is a contradiction in terms for state officials to intimidate the media and at the same time brandish democratic credentials. A vibrant and free media environment is but the hallmark of civil liberties.
There is no denying that the media practitioners have to act responsibly. It’s also true that some elements in the media are guilty of partisanship, corruption, lack of professionalism due to little or no professional training. But these shortcoming should not be the basis for government censorship. Rather the government should encourage more self-regulation and better training of journalists.
There is an elaborate appeal process right up to the Supreme Court and better still the aggrieved public can sue to recover damages and be compensated for the wrongs suffered at the hands of journalists. The state therefore has no justification nor constitutional authority to arrest journalists and have their houses ransacked for purported crimes not recognised under our constitution.
It should be argued that from the above highlighted cases its clear that the increased criminalization of misdemeanours, and increased sanctions against the media have created a situation where security officers exceed their mandate when dealing with perceived media offences.
And some of the provisions of the law governing the media in this country including the proposed amendments are largely aimed at muzzling free speech and expression rather than guaranteeing it with reasonable provisions. In this situation, security officers do not consider it their duty to protect media freedoms but come in only to curtail them.
More anti-media laws mean the State no longer considers media vital in exposing rot in its systems, hence lack of political will to tame vices like corruption and abuse of office or even possible electoral malpractices in forthcoming elections.
We should not allow this practice to take root or to be perceived to be the norm because without a free media and without allow for divergent critical views ,the country’s young and fragile democracy will only be doomed to fail.
A media strategy that encourages intellectual discourse, openness on part of government, dialogue and tolerance for divergent views will go a long way to grow our democracy. Gagging the media is not a good idea and it won’t work.
The media being the last frontier to realising civil liberties should never give in to state patronage let alone harassment.
The writer is the Monitor Weekend Editions Editor and Advocate of the High Court of Uganda.
This article was this month published in the Uganda Media Review journal published by the Uganda Media Development Foundation and funded by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. All rights reserved.
msserwanga@gamail.com or msserwanga@yahoo.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
The government is proposing a new regime of laws in amendments to the existing media laws- that will add more restrictions to the already delicate media environment in Uganda. Legal experts and media practioners see the new proposed media legal regime as being targeted to beat the media into line ahead of the 2011 elections.
Despite its acclaimed popularity, the NRM government has always been wary of free and independent media. But for all the government’s unconstitutional maneuvers to curtail free speech, the draconian proposed amendments should not even be given a hearing even in our national parliament .
This is for the simple reason that government’s resolve to beat the media into submission does not rhyme with democratic values. It also against the universally accepted legal and moral principles that allow individuals the inherent right to freedom of speech and expression. The same principles apply to the media because a free press is very important in a democratic society to guard against the excesses of the state or government presided over by elected leaders.
Constitutional and media experts have argued that if the amendments are passed as drafted ,they would restrict freedom of expression in Uganda and impede the ability of journalists and media outlets to fulfill their democratic roles by imposing unnecessarily onerous registration and licensing requirements on both the print and electronic ,broadcasting media. The Constitution of Uganda in articles 27,41, provides that the people of Uganda have the right to express themselves freely and access information. These rights as stated in the constitution are inherent to the individual and cannot be granted by the state.
But the proposed laws contradict these provisions of the constitution. For instance under the proposed amendments , newspapers are required to apply for annual licensing . But worse still, Media Council , the regulatory body , is given broader powers to withdraw licenses at will if it deems the actions of the media house to “undermine national security, stability, or unity,” and are “against Uganda’s foreign relations, and the country’s economy”.
These are contestable constructs that would have to be defined clearly and narrowly if they are to pass the constitutional test for imposing limitations on right to freedom of expression. Requiring the annual licensing of newspapers by the Media Council puts undue burden on the profession and on the industry, thereby restricting the public’s broader right to freedom of expression and access to information.
.
And giving the Media Council the absolute discretion to define those terms as a condition for renewal of a license or as a basis for penal action would make the regulator an absolute determinant of what should constitute media content. This amounts to a “substantive restriction” on freedom of expression as stated in constitutional and supreme courts leading precedents.
In the land mark Supreme Court case of of Charles Onyango- Obbo and Andrew Mujuni Mwenda vs. Attorney General (AG) court stated: @ It’s difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed , a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions.” Court emphasized the fact that press freedom and the individual’s right to express ideas and thoughts freely cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. This means that the anticipated danger to national security and public order should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched.
However it should be noted that in Uganda and with the new proposed amendments , the government continues to treat press freedoms as a matter of strategic public bluster and not a constitutional guarantee. This is because the state functionaries are averse to public criticism because of the sometimes, irrational and, in some cases, undemocratic manner in which they run government.
But the primary objective of freedom of expression is to empower people to participate in decisions that affect their livelihood. And this empowerment cannot be over-emphasised especially now that we are heading into the general elections. This is especially true in the context of the forthcoming elections where candidates seeking elective national political offices should address the issues that are central to the Ugandan public.. In other words, freedoms of speech, expression and the media are intended to promote accountability and transparency in governance.
In the same Supreme Court case cited above , the learned judges cemented this principle of the law by stating that “ in a free democratic society it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.
But a democracy means that there will always be two or more competing views- political and otherwise- to allow those who are governed the freedom to make a free choice on how they should be led. The media is just a vehicle by which these democratic ideas are conveyed. The proposed amendments therefore go against the wisdom of the court judgment in the Onyango Obbo case.
And on the balance, government has the largest share of the media platform in this country. By having a national radio and television network with the widest reach, and owning majority shares in the Vision Media Group that boasts of two daily newspapers, regional publications s and a string of radio stations, the government far outcompetes its political rivals in having its political philosophies and policies disseminated to the masses.
In any case, governments all over the world can only sell their policies to the public and the media for support. They can force public or pro-government media to toe the official line to manufacture consent but they cannot force the audience to buy those policies wholesale.
And one wonders why government is pushing for the amendments just months to the general elections when there is already a broad legal regime to govern the media in this country. The Press and Journalists Act and the Electronic Media Act are laws which provide for regulation of journalists in practice and set ethical standards for their conduct. These laws were enacted after consultations with all the stakeholders who included among others , government officials members of parliament on the parliamentary legal committee, the civil society organizations , the public, journalists and managers of media houses.
The existing legal framework governing the media laws also put in place disciplinary procedures and measures that can be taken against errant media and journalists. The problem is that the state has done very little to enforce these laws to ensure fairness on part of the media and the aggrieved public.
And when they have chosen to apply the provisions of the law the enforcing agencies, in this case , the Media and the Broadcasting Councils have done so -albeit selectively and on political instigation. And their decisions have been generally outrageous. In the recent two cases of State vs Red Pepper in the Gaddafi-Tooro Queen Mother case and suspension of journalists and closure of radio stations following the September riots- the accused persons and management of the closed radio station where never given a hearing. Thus the principle of fair trial and rule of natural justice which allows for an accused person to be heard before an impartial tribunal were never followed. All this was in fragrant violation of the national constitution.
No wonder there is been continued agitation since the bloody September riots for the opening of the Central Broadcasting Station and Buganda privately owned radio. Government on October 22 agreed to re-open the radio without any conditions after almost 11 months since it was closed down. The closing of the station led to loss of jobs for many young people and deprived the public of virtual information needed to make informed decisions. The country does not need to go back to these dark days since neither party in the CBS case has gained anything in the radio’s being off air for this long.
The law should be employed to protect the public good and not political ambitions of a few in leadership. The are also other laws that impact on the work of journalists in a negative way and could be invoked by the state especially in the coming general elections. These include the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Access to Information Act. Under the Anti- Terrorism Act, there is a lacuna( legal gap) about the definition of who a ‘terrorist’ and ‘publication’ is . This lacuna in the law is a cause of serious concern among the media professionals in the country, largely because many government officials including President Museveni have in the past openly equated journalists to rebels or labeled them government enemies.
But more disturbing is that the law hands out the death penalty to journalists found guilty of publishing or airing information or material deemed to promote terrorism. The death penalty which is still protected by the country’s constitution, leads to self censorship among journalists who may fear to be convicted for alleged publication of material that the state may deem to be promoting terrorism.
On the other hand the Access to Information Act , unnecessarily gives enormous powers to a public servant not to release information in the custody of the state if he/she deems it to be prejudicial to ‘national security’. And there are already cases where this power has been abused. In the case of Charles Mwanguhya and Angelo Izama vs State and now being heard in the constitutional court, government refused to release the oil contracts after the two journalists applied for the information under the provisions the Act. The government officials invoked the powers given to them under the Act to decline the release of information by citing ‘threats to national security’. Some of these laws therefore, need to be revisited and the repugnant sections repealed.
It’s also encouraging that the Uganda Newspaper Editors and Proprietors Association has rightly and promptly objected to the state machination’s to gag the media. In their recent statement the association has called for dialogue between the government and the media to allow the regulations that will not impinge on the fundamental rights of press freedom and the freedoms of free speech and expression.
It’s a fact that journalism is no easy task at the best of times- especially when questions are raised about the workings of journalists and the capacity of the media especially those outside the realm of government- to provide accurate, reliable and timely information on the conduct of those who are in charge of running the government.
The role of the media in a young democracy like Uganda is very crucial in highlighting and exposing the wrongs and excesses of government officials and the widespread corruption in public service.
And while media firms and journalists’ groups like UNEPA should promote higher professional standards among journalists, it’s also the duty of the press as the 4th estate to expose abuse of power by those who are in authority. This the watchdog function, which is a true democratic mandate of the media.
It’s now an accepted international legal norm that a free media is essential for creation of democratic societies. This is a universal and fundamental right.
It is pertinent to point out at this stage that the government maneuvers to gag the media through legal and other means is inconsistent with the rapidly changing media technologies. Its strategy to target formal media ignores the new media which has proved far more widespread than earlier believed.
The advent of digital reporting, text news messages and global phenomena of the dot-com journalism and citizen journalism has changed the speed and reach of news.
The total newspaper daily print run in Uganda is less than 100,000 copies. But there are six million mobile telephone subscribers in the country. Any news that government would wish printed can easily be circulated over the phone to six million Ugandans.
But in Uganda the government continues to treat press freedoms as a matter of strategic public bluster and not a constitutional guarantee. This is because the state officials are averse to public criticism. This is because of the way some state operatives employ unconstitutional means when dealing with journalist or where individual rights are freedoms are abused.
Cases have been recorded where security officials harass, beat and lock- up journalists for a mere spoken or written word. The ideal would be for government to use its vast media outlets to make counter arguments or clarifications, or even follow legal channels to counter the media.
The government has a legion of well paid media and public relations advisers and strategists it can use to counter the alleged falsehoods peddled by the “errant” private publications through public sensitisation and provision of the correct information without resorting to macho maneuvres against journalists.
It is a contradiction in terms for state officials to intimidate the media and at the same time brandish democratic credentials. A vibrant and free media environment is but the hallmark of civil liberties.
There is no denying that the media practitioners have to act responsibly. It’s also true that some elements in the media are guilty of partisanship, corruption, lack of professionalism due to little or no professional training. But these shortcoming should not be the basis for government censorship. Rather the government should encourage more self-regulation and better training of journalists.
There is an elaborate appeal process right up to the Supreme Court and better still the aggrieved public can sue to recover damages and be compensated for the wrongs suffered at the hands of journalists. The state therefore has no justification nor constitutional authority to arrest journalists and have their houses ransacked for purported crimes not recognised under our constitution.
It should be argued that from the above highlighted cases its clear that the increased criminalization of misdemeanours, and increased sanctions against the media have created a situation where security officers exceed their mandate when dealing with perceived media offences.
And some of the provisions of the law governing the media in this country including the proposed amendments are largely aimed at muzzling free speech and expression rather than guaranteeing it with reasonable provisions. In this situation, security officers do not consider it their duty to protect media freedoms but come in only to curtail them.
More anti-media laws mean the State no longer considers media vital in exposing rot in its systems, hence lack of political will to tame vices like corruption and abuse of office or even possible electoral malpractices in forthcoming elections.
We should not allow this practice to take root or to be perceived to be the norm because without a free media and without allow for divergent critical views ,the country’s young and fragile democracy will only be doomed to fail.
A media strategy that encourages intellectual discourse, openness on part of government, dialogue and tolerance for divergent views will go a long way to grow our democracy. Gagging the media is not a good idea and it won’t work.
The media being the last frontier to realising civil liberties should never give in to state patronage let alone harassment.
The writer is the Monitor Weekend Editions Editor and Advocate of the High Court of Uganda.
This article was this month published in the Uganda Media Review journal published by the Uganda Media Development Foundation and funded by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. All rights reserved.
msserwanga@gamail.com or msserwanga@yahoo.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
