UNDERSTANDING UGANDA' S CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT LAW

UNDERSTANDING THE PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT LAW By Moses Sserwanga The Public Order Management Law which was recently enacted by parliament and awaits President Yoweri Museveni’s assent has caused mixed reactions among the public with some arguing that it will curtail civil liberties of Ugandans or narrow down political space while others say it’s a good law to ensure public order and safety. Foreign Affairs Minister Sam Kutesa and State Minister for Internal Affairs James Baba have both described the new Law as an attempt to define the roles of different stakeholders- the police, organisers and participants in public gatherings while taking care of those who might be affected by such meetings. Over 80% of the law was amended by the Parliamentary Legal committee before it was presented to parliament and enacted into law , according to Abdul Katuntu the MP for Bugweri. On 27th May 2008, The Constitutional Court on May 27 2008 in a constitutional petition No. 9/06 of Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General annulled section 32 (2) of the Police Act. Section 32 (2) empowered the Inspector General of Police to prohibit public assemblies or demonstrations where the assemblies or demonstrations posed a likelihood of breach of peace. The learned judges of the Constitutional Court, held in their elaborate ruling that section 32 (2) of the Police Act authorized the police to prohibit assemblies, rallies or demonstrations and this was inconsistent with article 29 (1) (d) of the Constitution which guarantees the enjoyment of the freedom to assemble and demonstrate. The impugned Section provided as follows; “If it comes to the knowledge of the Inspector General that it is intended to convene any assembly or form any procession on any public road or street or at any place or 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 the assembly or forming of the procession, prohibit the convening of the assembly or forming of the procession”. The Court ruled that the powers given to the police were discretionary, prohibitive and not regulatory. After the court’s annulment of section 32 (2) of the Police Act, it means that the Police no longer has the power to prohibit a procession or assembly. The Court further ruled that if the Police entertained reasonable belief that some disturbance might occur during the assembly, then police should provide security and supervision in anticipation of the disturbances. But its also imperative to understand that while court annulled section 32 (1), section 32 (2) of the same law which gives power to police to regulate the management of assemblies and processions was retained. The learned Attorney General while presenting the law for enactment in parliament argued and rightly so that the individual or public’s right to assemble and to demonstrate as enshrined in Article 29(i) (d) of the Constitution is not absolute, it is qualified. The right is qualified in a sense that it must be enjoyed “peacefully and unarmed”. which means that this right to be enjoyed the above provision of demonstrating peacefully and unarmed should be observed. Article 212 of the Constitution gives the Uganda Police Force the following mandate; to protect life and property; to preserve law and order; to prevent and detect crime; and to co-operate with civilian authority and other security organs established under the Constitution and with the population generally. SO what does the new law entail The objective of the law is to regulate public meetings, to provide for the duties and responsibilities of the Police, organizers of public meetings and participants. Regulate is defined in the law to mean ensuring that conduct or behavior conforms to the requirements of the Constitution and the law. The law also lays out measures aimed at safeguarding public order without compromising the principles of democracy, freedom of association or assembly and freedom of speech. It is the constitutional duty of the Police to ensure that any person exercising that freedom does so peacefully and unarmed. Article 43 of the Constitution provides a general limitation on the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms in the Constitution. It provides as follows: that the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest. The constitution further provides that Public interest shall not permit;- political persecution; detention without trial; any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms prescribed by this Chapter beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what is provided in this Constitution”. The framers of our Constitution therefore envisaged the need to have a balance between the enjoyment of one’s rights and freedoms and not prejudicing the rights and freedoms of others and the general public interest. Notice of public meeting in sections 2 and 7 In order to regulate public meetings, the law provides for an organizer of a public meeting to notify the IGP or an authorized officer of the intention to hold a meeting at least 3 days before the proposed date of the meeting. The debate on notification in parliament was between 7 days by the government side while the opposition proposed instant notification. After debate both sides agreed to 3 days notice as a compromised position. According to the law an organizer of a meeting means any person or his or her agent in charge of calling the public meeting. A public meeting is defined as a gathering, assembly, procession or demonstration of persons in or on any public place or premises held for the purposes of discussing, acting upon, petitioning or expressing views on a matter of public interest. The public interest includes anything in which the public or a section of the public has a stake or is concerned about. The essential elements in regulating public meetings are the place which should be public and the purpose for which the meeting is being held. The law thus exempts social, cultural and religious gatherings and meetings of members of regulated bodies. The following meetings are also exempted from the requirements of giving notice: meetings of organs of a political party or organization convened in accordance with the Constitution of the party or organization and held exclusively to discuss the affairs of the party or organization Other meets exempted from getting permission from police are meetings convened by a group, body or leader of a group or body at the ordinary place of business of that body, group or leader or any other place which is not a public place in the course of the lawful business of the group, body or leader. Requirements for the notice, the notice required to be given by an organizer should include: the name and address of the organizer. the proposed date and time of the public meeting which should be after 7.00 a.m and not beyond 6.00 p.m. Others requirements are the proposed site (venue) of the meeting, the estimated number of persons expected at the meeting, the purpose of the meeting, indication of the consent of the owner of the venue, where applicable, and any other relevant information. Notification by authorized officer under section 8 There some legal minds who have argued that section 8 of the new law restores powers of police to ‘prohibit’ gatherings and yet such powers were annulled by the Constitutional Court ruling refered to earlier in this article. So, what does section 8 provide? The law requires the organizer of the meeting/demonstration to give notice to Police specifying the dates, the time and venue of the public meeting. The Police has no authority to accept or reject the notice. If however the Police has renewed previous notice from another body indicating that they would hold another meeting in the same place, date and time, then the law allows Police to notify the later organizer that the place is already booked so that, in the interest of security, to reschedule or find another day or venue. So does this provision give police a leeway to say stop an opposition gathering by giving flimsy reasons that the venue was booked or unsuatble for a meeting because either it is a market place, business centre, hospital, school I think we cant say for certain and maybe this is an area if applied wrongly the affected persons can petition court. The law provides an appeal mechanism for a person aggrieved by the notification of the authorized officer. The appeal may be made against the notification to a Magistrate in the area where the meeting was scheduled. Spontaneous meetings under section 9 The law provides that spontaneous public meetings may be held without the requirement of notifying the authorized officer. A spontaneous meeting is defined as an unplanned, unscheduled or unintended public meeting. For instance if a member of parliament visits his or her constituency and people gather around him, and he is compelled to address them then in such a situation he may not notify the police because the gathering is spontaneous. Duties of the Police section 10 In order to protect the persons exercising their rights or freedoms to assemble or associate and the general public, the law provides for the following duties on the police: to provide security and safety for both the participants and other members of the public affected by the meeting; to ensure fairness and equal treatment of all parties by giving consistent responses to organizers of public meetings. Other duties are to carry out risk assessment on all factors before the public meeting; to identify an appropriate traffic plan to allow the flow of both vehicles and human traffic; to direct traffic and the routes to and from the event to prevent obstruction of pedestrians, traffic or lawful business; to disperse defiant or unruly persons in order to prevent violence, restore order and preserve peace. The writer is an advocate of the High Court of Uganda and a Communications ,Media consultant msserwanga@gmail.com

Access to Justice:NEW SENTENCING GUIDELINES A LITIMUS TEST FOR UGANDA’S JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Access to Justice: NEW SENTENCING GUIDELINES A LITIMUS TEST FOR UGANDA’S JUDICIAL OFFICERS For some time now in Uganda, there is been a general public out-cry about the wide disparities in sentences passed by judicial officers against convicted persons. This has meant that the sentencing process doesn’t lead to justice for the victim, the accused and the public. Most sentences passed by judicial officials have ended up being open ended , unrealistic, inconsistent and left to the discretion of court. The public has hitherto had little or no direct in-put or participation in sentencing to allow court get the feeling of the community as regards the seriousness of the offence. And in order to address the disparities in sentences, the Judiciary has now developed sentencing guidelines the first of the kind in East Africa . The new sentencing guidelines according to Uganda’s Principal Judge Yorokamu Bamwine, were prepared under the instructions of the Chief Justice, Benjamin Odoki to provide principles and guidelines to be applied by courts in sentencing . For the start, there will be sentencing guidelines for 10 offences which include , murder, manslaughter, defilement, robbery , corruption related offences, obtaining money by false pretences, theft, criminal trespass, doing grievous bodily harm and assault. Mr. Bamwine explains that the development of the guidelines will continue to cover all offences under the Penal Code. With these new guidelines ,its our hope that we shall have sentences that are humane, predictable , uniform and effective. There is need to train all actors like the police, advocates, the probation and social welfare officers and the general public to under and participate in the process of finding the appropriate sentence for a convicted person. He said that with the guidelines in place, plea bargaining will be encouraged , courts will be deducting the period spent on remand and that suspects will be making informed decisions as to whether to plead guilty or not since the sentence ranges are pre-determined. Mr.Andrew Khaukha who is a member of the Sentencing Secretariat at the Judiciary, explains that the guidelines are guidance in the exercise of judicial discretion which judicial officers enjoy in the administration of justice and are by no means meant to fetter that discretion in any way because it (the discretion) is derived from the Constitution. Khaukkha says that the guidelines should, therefore, only be understood as ‘guidelines’ for judicial officers when assessing appropriate punishment to impose. Circumstances, nature of offence and a host of other factors will no doubt continue to influence the type of sentence handed out to convicted persons. Dr Katja Kerschbaumer the Senior Advisor on Good Governance (Danida) says that although sentencing is a duty that vests in the courts of law, it is a function that must be exercised with a full sense of responsibility and accountability. Therefore, if the judicial officers play their balancing act of determining what is right and wrong, justice will be seen to be done. Extreme leniency or severity of sentence cannot be in the interests of any society. This means, therefore, that a sentence of the court must, by and large, serve the interests of the community, befit the offence and give the offender his due desserts for doing that what right thinking members of society may frown upon. Chief Justice Odoki says that a sentence of the Court must neither be revengeful, nor be so excessive as to induce a sense of shock or be so lenient as to amount to sheer travesty of justice and must not be overly inappropriate. “judicial officers should always analytically consider all material facts with all care, and give full and clear reasons for any sentence imposed.,” he added . Odoki states that this practice is good for the sake of accountability to the public and also for the benefit of the offender. He further states that the public deserves protection of the courts against the criminal elements and therefore, punitive and robust sentences are justified for serious, heinous or cruel offences and that in deserving cases, petty offenders deserve appropriate sentences that reform them towards the righteous paths of law abiding citizens. In light of this , the issuance of the sentencing guidelines by the chief Justice under a practice direction as provided under Article 133 of the Constitution ,will lead to sentences not being arbitrary or solely intended to appease the victims Although the guidelines promote a consideration of all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, its impact on the victim and society should also be considered. The judiciary is now conducting numerous training sessions for judges, magistrates, advocates, prosecutors , police and probation officers on how to apply the new sentencing guidelines. The writer is an Advocate of the high Court. He is also a Media and Communications Consultant. msserwanga@gmail.com

TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE A SHIELD LAW IN UGANDA

TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE A SHIELD LAW IN UGANDA MOSES SSERWANGA delves into the tricky question of whether or not Uganda should enact a Shield Law to protect journalists from disclosing sources. It is a complex issue given the loose definition of a journalist, and after effects of the phone hacking scandal in the UK. They have always been easy allies- the journalists and their sources of information. But this privileged relationship is increasingly being challenged by third parties including the state and its agents, raising the pertinent question whether a ‘shield law’ should be introduced to Uganda’s media industry. A shield law can be defined as the law which affords news reporters the privilege to protect their sources. But the privilege must be balanced against a variety of competing government interests such as the right of the government to apprehend criminals and to prevent the impairment of investigations. Still, most states have enacted shield laws, based on the right to access information which guarantee the freedom of the press as provided for in the Bill of Rights In the case of Uganda, this is in Chapter Four of the Uganda constitution. Now, more than ever before, many senior media practitioners interviewed for this paper agreed on the need to accelerate advocacy for parliament to pass a shield law that protects journalists and their sources. With this law in place, industry players argue that journalists will effectively play their traditional and democratic watchdog role without being compelled to reveal their sources of information . David Ouma Balikowa, veteran editor and media consultant makes the case for a shield law to protect journalists and their sources from being prosecuted. “Much as we have a Whistle Blower law that protects people who volunteer information in the public interest, it should be noted that not all whistle blowers are sources of information. Journalists’ sources go beyond whistle blowing. The shield law should be distinct from the Whistle Blowers law; sources of information must be determined and well defined,” he argues. Balikowa posits that journalists should only be compelled to disclose their sources of information by courts of law upon provision of hard evidence that, by doing so, national security interests will be protected. John Kakande, a senior editor at the Vision Group and Margret Sentamu -Masagazi, Executive Director Uganda Media Women’s Association, echo Balikoowa’s views, adding that that there was need for a national dialogue to discuss the enactment of a law to protect journalists and their sources. Their argument is that such a law would ensure public accountability and good governance. The reporters’ privilege not to reveal sources is premised partly on the provisions of Uganda Constitution of 1995, Article 29 which guarantees the public free access to information that is in the hands of government and its agents. The enabling law, The Access to Information Act was operationalised in 2012 after the President assented to it. In other words, free access to information and press freedom -can only be upheld when journalists are protected to access information even from confidential sources in a national effort to provide accurate information for the public to make informed decisions. “This is a constitutional requirement which must be protected,” says, Haruna Kanabi , Executive Secretary of the Independent Media Council of Uganda.( IMCU). There is a provision in Section 38 of the Press and Journalists’ Act that forbids journalists from disclosing their sources except when instructed by a court of competent jurisdiction. This, however, is only a prohibition and does not amount to protection of journalists’ sources. On the other hand, those who are challenging this long held journalists’ professional privilege not to disclose their sources, argue that with the liberalization of broadcasting that led to the proliferation of electronic media outlets, the profession has over the last two decades ,attracted many practitioners with limited or no professional knowledge. This shortage of professionalism has prompted media critics within the public to question whether legal protection should be applied in an omnibus manner, even to abusive and unprofessional journalists. There is also the emergence of the power dynamics between journalists and their sources where the professional high standards of objectivity and independence is being eroded by the powerful , dominant sources of information. As argued by scholars such as Terence Johnson in his book Professions and Power (1972), journalism as a profession loses its autonomy to the forces (read sources) on which journalists depend for information. This argument has been amplified by the recent developments in Britain where reporters attached to the then British tabloid, News of the World, misused the news reporters privilege to protect sources. The paper’s journalists and editors used crude methods including tapping phones of subjects, and at times paid huge amounts to police to obtain information about individuals to use as exclusive story content. These journalists invaded people’s privacy but could not divulge sources of information citing the long held tradition of not revealing sources. It should be noted that the News of the World soon folded following a public outcry that led to a landmark parliamentary inquiry into the scandal. Lord Justice Leveson, who led an inquiry in this public scandal has since released a report in which he states thus: “ There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained.” Leveson has gone ahead to question the ‘blanket’ privilege of news reporters to protect their sources and recommended for the introduction of a new press law to establish a new regulator with statutory backstop. And yet, the professional misdemeanor, where journalists hide behind the privilege to protect sources, to distort facts , blackmail or worse still extort money from the unsuspecting public for selfish purposes is not limited to the UK. Just recently, The Chief Executive Officer, (CEO) , of The New Vision Group, Mr. Robert Kabushenga, has come clean by publically declaring that indeed, there are journalists who engaged in extortion either as blackmail or in return for guaranteeing favorable publicity. He noted that this has now become an industry-wide problem which threatens to destroy the credibility of media institutions in the country. The question then is : Should we really have a shield law enacted in Uganda to protect news reporters privilege not to disclose sources of information? This question can only be answered after an in-depth analysis of the different arguments presented by the various industry scholars in those jurisdictions where shield laws are applied. The nature and rationale of the Shield Law; But for better understanding of the operation of the shield law we can borrow a leaf from the United States of America where there have been more progress in the application of shield laws. Congress in 1975, passed Federal Rule of Evidence 501 concerning privileges including the qualified reporters’ privilege. The “phantom” privilege referred to earlier dates from Branzburg v. Hayes in 1972. A deeply divided US Supreme Court, while ruling against the reporter, seemed to find a basis for a qualified reporter privilege. In his eloquent and prescient dissent Justice Potter Stewart warned that without a privilege the historic independence of the press would be undermined. Justice Stewart reasoned that without the qualified reporter privilege, (qualified in a sense that there should be reasonable limitations imposed by courts of competent jurisdictions), sources of information for the public good would be apprehensive in reaching out to journalists to share the said information. This, Justice Stuart noted, would fundamentally weaken press freedom and the public’s right to access information. A number of problems have arisen, however, concerning the scope and application of this privilege. One such dilemma is determining to whom the privilege applies. It goes back to a question of definitions of whether journalists are professionals to enjoy the trappings of a professional. Unlike other professionals, privileged by scholarship, societal standing and licencing like lawyers and doctors, in Uganda many journalists are not licensed or certified in any manner. Any law that provides a privilege necessarily must define whom it will cover. This is a well-placed caution with strong historical perspectives on the dangers of government defining who is a journalist. Licensing and mandatory membership in press groups have been frequent and convenient ways for government to restrict press freedom. The Press and Journalists Act (2000) does not have a definitive definition of who a journalist is. In other jurisdictions a journalist has been defined as one who communicates via newspaper, is employed by a newspaper, or whose communication is classified as “news.” The other issue which arises is whether books, magazine articles, or pamphlets are encompassed in the definition of a newspaper. Most state statutes also protect television and radio broadcasts, although some limit protection to “news” programs. In addition, some courts have held that documentary films should be included in the scope of the privilege protection. There is also the question of how the term news should be defined. Statutes seldom define the term, and some commentators are not convinced that an adequate definition can be devised. Presumably poetry or works of fiction are not news, but it is a more difficult question when considering sensationalism or gossip. Some legal scholars advocate avoiding consideration of the supposed worth of the communication and making the privilege available to those who generally acquire information for public dissemination. According to John Baptist Wasswa, journalism lecturer at Makerere University, the definition of who is a journalist should encompass professionals who are in the business of publishing information . “And I think this goes beyond journalists. That’s an area which must be agreed upon by the industry players and other stakeholders when developing the shield law. We need to determine the categories of these professionals i.e film producers, playwrights , Djs, etc .Should all these professions involved in providing information be protected?,” he says. Another important issue that arises under state statutes that protect journalist’s sources is whether a “source” can only be a human informant or whether it can include a book, document, tape recording, or photograph. Both Kakande and Sentamu Masagazi argue that sources who should be protected are those who divulge information in the custody of state actors. Again this should be read together with the provisions of the Access to Information Act. Others who should be protected are those sources in vulnerable positions where upon disclosure could lead to their lose of employment. Wasswa makes the point, however, that a proposed shield law should not apply to the editor-reporter relationship. For good journalism to flourish and in order to give the editor a certain level of confidence in a journalist’s story, journalists should disclose their sources to their editors. The onus then lies on the editors not to disclose the journalist’s sources to third parties. The Uganda situation makes the need for more protection for sources even more urgent. Security issues are taking centre stage, and we are witnessing increased government secrecy on matters that should be in the public arena, such as petroleum production agreements. Tony Pederson ,a distinguished media scholar and a Belo Chair in Journalism at Southern Methodist University, states that while shield laws are not necessarily the complete answer to challenges on reporter privilege, this much is certain: “The loss of an aggressive and independent press puts all individual liberties at risk. Even the media bashers and the hard-liners on prosecutorial rights will have to listen at some point. Constitutional government has often been a balancing act, and a reasonable balance is what is needed.” The recent police siege at the Daily Monitor and Red Pepper has compounded the shield law debate. Did the controversial missive by Gen. Sejjusa qualify as a documentary source befitting protection? Is it still a revered source when the author confirms he penned it? Was police looking for the right source? This indeed brings forth a new dimension. As we carry forward this discussion it’s imperative for Uganda’s media fraternity to do a soul searching and determine whether it has employed the ‘sacred’ privilege to protect sources in service of the public good or, for selfish . Otherwise, it won’t be long when third parties will have a just cause to render this benefit redundant. The writer is a an advocate of the High Court of Uganda This paper was first published in the Uganda Media Review Journal msserwanga@gmail.com

HOW LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA CAN BE IMPROVED

How Leadership in Africa can be improved Paper Presented by Moses Paul Sserwanga Media, Communications and Legal Consultant Understanding the problem: To answer the above highlighted question I start by quoting one of Africa’s icons former South Africa President Nelson Madiba Mandela who once stated thus: “ Poverty is not an accident like slavery and apartheid: it's man made and can be removed by actions of human being”. Many of the problems of my country Uganda and Africa in general are man made and that’s why in order for one to advocate solutions to Africa’s problems , it’s imperative to identify some of the underlying factors responsible for the leadership and development challenges that the continent faces today. Dictatorship has led to many civil wars that have caused so much suffering to the Ugandan people since independence in 1962 up-to the early 2000s when Joseph Kony’s Lords Resistance and Allied Democratic Forces, (ADF) armed rebellions where brought to an end by the National army the Uganda Peoples Defence Force (UPDF). With dictatorship, came wide spread corruption, discrimination and disfranchisement of the vulnerable people including women and minority communities; misappropriation of state resources mainly for the benefit of a few people in the ‘privileged’ political class among others. Women who form a critical mass for the development of any given society in this modern era, still play second fiddle due to the male chauvinism which is deeply entrenched in the African traditional systems/settings. Many women in Uganda are not engaged in meaningful economic activity because they are meant to state at home and fend for the family while the men are out on drinking sprees. Thus, women have less civic engagement and lower political participation . Although , Uganda is considered one of Africa’s fast growing economies with an annual economic growth of 7.2% -one of the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa, the country largely relies on foreign aid for much of it’s national budget financial support and the majority of the people are still below the poverty line living on less than one dollar a day. It’s only recently when the donors suspended aid due to widespread corruption that the government has announced that in the coming financial year Uganda will finance its entire budget. One would therefore think that Uganda cannot fund its own development. That’s not the case. The government has got money but like many other African countries, state resources are not spent on priority areas like education, health and infrastructure, instead , money is channeled to finance political patronage and the military. The African leaders spend much of their countries’ resources to develop big armies which they employ to perpetuate themselves in power. This is not a good practice for development to take root . There’s even a challenging of collecting taxes that are due to government because of corruption . Ms. Allen Kagina, the Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority,(URA) has recently acknowledged that Uganda collects only a fraction of its the taxes due to the monster called graft!. And much as Africa is endowed with rich natural resources like the recently discovered oil in western Uganda and neighbouring , DR Congo, Kenya and Tanzania -the Sub-Saharan Africa is home to a third of the world’s poorest people, and six of the top 10 most backward economies in the world. The majority of the poor cannot accesses the resources available for development and the circle of poverty continues. The continent’s economic ability is also being eroded by the illegal capital flight “ hemorrhaging” out of African countries – often in the form of tax evasion and trade imbalances . This is the wanton phenomenon of under development that’s pronounced across much of Africa -a continent with 52 states. WAY FORWARD First and foremost ,the political leadership in African must be held accountable on all the promises they make while assuming office. This can be done through periodical peer reviews which should be set up at all levels of governance to assess the performance of leaders on the continent. The African Peer Review Mechanism that was set up to access the performance of African presidents is a good measure going forward. But much as the African Peer Review penal normally publishes its findings following the assessments it carries out for public accountability purposes , mere publication of its reports without attendant sanctions for poor leadership is simply not good enough. The Peer Review Mechanism should come-up with agreed sanctions to be imposed against those leaders who do not meet the minimum set standards for good leadership. There should be a concerted effort to encourage women to participate in the political processes and take –up leadership positions because it has been proved that once given a chance, women can turn out to be good leaders. Africa is not short of the shining examples of women leaders who are now acclaimed globally. Here in Uganda for instance, the first woman speaker of parliament , Rebecca Kadaga is being hailed for her firm stand to protect and promote the sacred constitutional doctrine of separation of powers among the three arms of government ,the executive , parliament and the judiciary . Elsewhere on the continent, the first woman to be elected president on the African continent, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia’s and her counterpart Joyce Banda of Malawi are two other good examples of smart leadership that caters for the interests and development of the common man. Leadership that¬’s tailored at eliminating wastage of state resources for personal aggrandizement is what is need in Africa . Other leaders on the continent should be encouraged to emulate President Banda’s example were she sold off an expensive presidential jet and invested the proceeds in vital sectors such as agriculture , health and industries which directly benefit the people and spur economic growth and development. Leadership on the continent can also be improved by strengthening the various institutions of governance such as parliament , the judiciary ,civil society so that the individual leaders cease to be the law unto themselves. This is why state resources should be deployed to empower people through civic and formal education to demand for what is due to them and hold their leaders accountable. The question of accountability is even more prudent now that several countries have discovered mineral resources and oil within their territories. Much of the proceeds of the African resource boom need to go directly into education, health and nutrition and improving the productive capacities of the poorest citizens to foster economic growth and development . If not, efforts to boost economic growth in a sustainable way will be untenable . The European Union has recently set up a law that will make oil, gas, mining and logging companies declare payments to governments in the countries where they operate. This is a good gesture in a global concerted effort to enforce transparency. On the economic front, African governments should put in place all inclusive economic policies that cater for the interests of all- including the vulnerable groups like women , minorities, and the disabled. Women emancipation programs being implemented in Uganda to empower women economically by extending credit and farm inputs should be show-cased elsewhere on the continent. The private sector should not be left behind either because its the engine of Africa’s economy. Financial institutions like the African Development Bank should be revamped to provide the much needed credit to fuel economic activity and development through the public –private partnership mechanism. African governments should enact laws that will reduce the lead times in doing business on the continent . There’s to much red tape coupled with corrupt tendencies that continue to discourage many foreign investors from doing business and investing in Africa. Uganda is now moving to reduce on this red-tape by creating a conducive investment climate by enacting a friendly legal framework to ease on the length procedures an investor hitherto, had to endure to start-up a business in the country. The rest of Africa should follow this good example. African leaders should leverage and position Africa as a major investment destination in the world in those sectors where it has a comparative advantage such as agriculture and energy. They should also ensure value addition to much of what Africa produces to increase people’s incomes the majority of whom are farmers. Africa needs to invest more in equipment, technology and infrastructure which create jobs for many youths that are coming out of universities and technical colleges . But it’s also imperative that efforts to develop Africa must be carried out in a sustainable manner by taking care of the natural environment for the benefit of the present and future generations . For their part, Africa’s development partners can deliver aid, which will promote good governance, and support civil society to keep their leaders accountable. Aid must be properly used to increase our capacity to produce more income. It is time for a new, fair deal for the poor peoples of Africa; one that gets Africa’s resources deployed for the benefit of all its people- the public good so to speak. ENDS msserwanga@gmail.com

By Moses Sserwanga UNDERSTANDING TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE TO REDRESS LRA'S WAR CRIMES AND OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN NORTHERN UGANDA Transitional Justice has emerged as one of the key thematic (read theme/subject)areas for the Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) to promote justice and accountability for past human rights violations and war crimes for victims in Uganda’s conflict-affected areas. Our country has witnessed turbulence predating independence, and has since then been grappling with finding lasting solutions to issues of human rights violations , destruction property in war affected areas. Lives were lost, persons disappeared, human rights were abused and violated, children were abducted and people maimed. The future of many children whose life opportunities have been lost remains uncertain; it is only noble to say that the scars of our past vividly haunt us. In order to redress these injustices, the Justice Law and Order Sector, (JLOS) has put in place a Transitional Justice process and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempt to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation. According to the Transitional Justice technical Advisor at the JLOS Secretariat , Ms. Margaret Ajok, Transitional Justice consists of both judicial and non –judicial processes and mechanisms which include prosecution initiatives, truth seeking and reparation programs. “ Through this system we want to promote justice and accountability for past human rights violations and war crimes. We are going to enhance access to justice and provide basic services for victims in Uganda’s conflict affected areas with emphasis on the rights of vulnerable groups (women and Children),” she says. Ajok explained that the Transitional justice agenda in Uganda was brought on board with the signing of the 2007 Juba Agreement on accountability and reconciliation. “The spirit of the agreement is the need to adopt appropriate justice mechanisms to resolve the two-decade war in Northern Uganda and to promote accountability and reconciliation. The agreement requires that the Government of Uganda adopt appropriate policy framework for the implementation of the terms of the agreement, introduce amendments to the amnesty the law to conform with the agreement and undertake legal proceedings nationally or internationally, “ she stated. In 2008, a Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG) was established to critically think through the practical issues that have to be addressed before transitional justice mechanisms on accountability and reconciliation are institutionalised. The working group consists of individuals from core JLOS institutions selected based on their comparative role in implementing the commitment in the Juba peace agreement in accountability and reconciliation. The working group is divided into the formal criminal jurisdiction, traditional justice, traditional justice truth telling and integrated systems sub - committees in order to expedite the work of the working group to tackle different thematic areas with representatives nominated from the various institutions. These institutions include the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA), the Judiciary, The Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC), the Uganda Police Force, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Ministry In 2009, the formal justice sub committees undertook consultations on the use of formal criminal prosecutions in addressing impunity with specific regard to the then proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) Bill. The outcome of the study led to proposals for amendment of the Bill which is now law - the International Criminal Court Act, 2010[1]. The Act serves as the legal framework for bringing perpetrators of war atrocities to account for their actions. In 2010, the 15th Annual Government of Uganda – Development Partner Review meeting was held whereby transitional justice featured as an important commitment of the Sector. JLOS has since adopted transitional justice as an important process to deliver justice for conflict affected regions and communities in Uganda through the sector wide approach. Transitional justice is also being incorporated into JLOS strategic investment plan III. In 2011, the sector undertook national consultations on the use of traditional justice and truth telling mechanisms in the promotion of accountability and reconciliation. Findings from the consultations will lead to the development of policy proposals on alternative justice mechanisms, including truth-seeking, traditional justice and reparations. National Transitional Justice Policy: The National Transitional Justice Policy will be developed in accordance with the Juba Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation (2007). Equally, the views and aspirations of the people who were affected by the conflict are being taken into consideration. The agreement emphasizes victims’ rights and participation with special attention to the situation of women and children who were affected by conflict and promotion of a holistic approach to justice. “The policy will therefore address issues of justice and reconciliation through a number of methods ,including: traditional justice mechanisms, reparations, and social reintegration of conflict affected communities , including amnesty reporters and victims of serious violations. The writer is a human rights lawyer, trainer,development communication/media consultant and advocate of High Court of Uganda

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH JANET MUSEVENI

In an exclusive interview with Gov’t Review held at state house Nakasero on a bright sunny Monday afternoon, the First Lady and Minister for Karamoja, Mrs. Janet Museveni, revealed what motivates her to serve her country. (see our lead story and full interview inside.) Mrs Museveni says thus; “It’s my duty, just like I believe that it’s a duty of every Ugandan to improve every part of Uganda. We must work to ensure that Uganda can become an interesting place to visit instead of us admiring other countries and thinking that our own country is not interesting, it’s not developed. If we don’t do that work ourselves, Uganda will never become better. Besides, those countries we look at and admire have been beautified by their own people. So it’s up to us to work and ensure that Uganda becomes better and that means every part of Uganda, every corner of Uganda- so that the next generation which will come after us will find a better place to live and work.” We at Gov’t Review a publication which is premised at publishing information about Uganda’s development agenda and explain government policy -to inspire Ugandans to do much more for our country, are in total agreement with Mrs. Museveni’s views about the path our country should take for greater economic growth and development. The great American leader, John F Kennedy at his inauguration in Washington on January 20 1961, stated; “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” We believe that a time has come for Ugandans as well, to ask what they can do for their country instead of waiting for handouts from our development partners or more still the central government. Mrs. Museveni, made a more comprehensive case for Ugandans especially the young generation to embrace hard work and be patriotic citizens . This is what we need if we are to remain a truly competitive nation in a tight global economic arena where the gap between the wealthy and poor is widening everyday. Let Ugandans ride on the good government ecomomic policies and targeted interventions like the affirmative action in Karimoja region and the youth fund to emancipate ourselves and make a meaningful contribution for individual growth and national development. Government has stood-up for Karamoja a hitherto neglected ,isolated part of our country and we support Mrs. Janet Museveni who is running the Karamoja docket under the Office of the Prime Minister in her endeavour to lead the transformation of the region . She is rallying the region for the larger purpose of greater freedom and revival. Executive Editor msserwanga@govreview.ug msserwanga@gmail.com

IS JLOS DELIVERING ON ITS PROMISE

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAW BY MOSES SSERWANGA IS JLOS DELIVERING ON IT’S PROMISE Since the NRM government led by President Yoweri Museveni took over power by legal Notice No. 1 of 1986 significant inroads have been made in putting the country on a constitutional path . It’s imperative therefore to examine how the Justice Law and Order Sector performed in the last 10 years . Just like any other revolution that overthrows another government, when the NRM captured power after a 5 year war , it immediately suspended the 1967 Constitution by legal Notice No.1 of 1986 and among other things vested the NRC with supreme authority of the government including the legislative powers of the legislature (Parliament). The Legal Notice No. 1 stipulated what kind of leadership the NRM wanted to implement in the country. And since constitutionalism was one of the grievances that led Museveni and his fighters to the bush to wage a protracted war against what was perceived to be a doctorial government led by the late President Milton Obote, It was planned that the country would have a national constitution where people’s views were to be considered. And in 1995 Ugandans came up with this Constitution which effectively ended the operation of the NRM Legal Notice I. By any standards, the 1995 constitution which was promulgated after country wide consultations and fierce debate in the Constituent Assembly, was a good document ; that provided for fundamental human rights in chapter four of its pages, separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature and the executive and more significantly provided for presidential term limits. And once the Constitution was in place, government through parliament has gone a head to enact many good laws to fight corruption and ensure public accountability and transparency, protection of the environment and natural resources and ensure public order , security of persons and property and the rule of law generally. More still the 10 ten last years , have seen government a Strategic Investment Plan (SIP 1& 2) and it’s now rolling out SIP III for the next five years 2012/13-2017, to ensure the rule of law and justice for all Ugandan irrespective of their gender, age and social status. The Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) is a sector wide approach that brings together 17institutions responsible for administering justice maintaining law and order and promoting the observance of human rights. For the record the JLOS 17 institutions include , Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA)which is the Lead Institution , the Judiciary, Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (CADER),Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control (DCIC),Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Law Development Centre (LDC), Ministry of Gender, Labor and Social Development(MoGLSD)-Juvenile Justice, and Ministry of Internal Affairs(MIA). Others are the Ministry of Local Government(Local Council Courts),Tax Appeals Tribunal (TAT),Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC),Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC), Uganda Law Society (ULS), Uganda Police Force (UPF), Uganda Prison Service (UPS), and Uganda Registration Services Bureau (URSB). New innovations some of which have won international awards have been brought on board such as the Chain Linked Initiative to fast track justice and community policing to prevent crime. On the whole , It can be argued that to some extent great strides have been made in realization of the rule of law and administration of justice. This is evidenced through the creation of Specialised divisions of the High Court which include ,the Commercial, land, family, criminal , anti corruption High Court divisions among others. The number of magistrates and judges on the bench has more than doubled and the judicial service delivery facilities including court premises have been renovated and new ones constructed although the justice sector is still under-funded. But although government has made tremendous effort in ensuring a functioning and fair justice system in the country, there many inherent weakness and in some cases out right violations of the spirit of our national Constitution. Some of the subsidiary laws enacted have tended to take away some of the rights protected under the constitution . The constitution itself has since been amended to remove term limits a decision that has been widely criticized. Since 1999 the Constitution has been amended 48 times setting a new record. Although among other amendments to the constitution was the establishment of a multi-party democracy. But on many occasions the presidential and local elections held under the pluralism system have been disputed for alleged lack of democratic political space, violence and voter bribery. The government also seems weak in implementation of the many laws that have been enacted and once it has come out to apply the law –it has been in many cases selectively done. The Inspector General of Government report produced together with the Economic Policy Research Center of Makerere University -2010 noted the poor implementation of laws that are supposed to ensure justice for all. It was reported that Uganda had almost 90% weak implementation of laws, most especially anti-corruption legislation. There’s also poor facilitation of agencies that are supposed to provide justice and law. The police is poorly facilitated thus being ranked as one of the most corrupt institutions. In the process justice is defeated and hence denied. The judiciary too has lamented over poor pay. The Chief Justice recently advocated an increase in the salary of judicial officers. This has affected the justice system in the country. Last year the IGG's report mentioned the judiciary as one of those agencies that have been hit by corruption. With poor pay of judicial officers corruption related cases have been reported against some judicial officers and yet they are supposed to be custodians of our laws. Justice cannot be delivered where the judiciary is perforated with corruption. The IGG office was established to ensure accountability among public officials and fight the corruption vise . But the office started off on the wrong premise as it was placed under the President’s Office hence its independence was questioned. It is now a constitutional office. The Leadership Code is among the tools the IGG is meant to enforce against public servants so that none has ill gotten wealth. It is still an uphill task to implement. Article 235A of the Constitution establishes the Leadership Code Tribunal to handle cases involving politicians that violate the Code however 7 years later it has not been constituted. The Office of the Auditor General is now independent able to regulate its funds and recruit staff in order to monitor government expenditure. The office is still thin on the ground. Proposals to amend the Constitution to deny the right of bail have gone a long away in threatening the justice doctrine enshrined in our constitution that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilt. Further still ,there is little or no effort at all to educate the Ugandan people about their constitutional rights and what is contained in the many good laws that have been enacted by parliament . The end result is that many people continue to suffer silently . Implementation of the enacted laws should be adhered to. Otherwise they cease to address the purpose for which they were enacted and end up being rendered redundant. Performance contracts should strictly be implemented and adequate funding towards JLOS institutions and their over site agencies should be revised upwards. Justice must be seen to be done . This article was first published in Gov’t Review a monthly publication that focuses on Uganda’s national development issues The writer is a development communications consultant and advocate of the High Court of Uganda