The unceasing battle between NUP and the Police: A mark of young Democracy.

The National Unity Part president, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu alias Bobi Wine, addressing party members recently.

By Amon Taliire.

Noteworthy Facts.

• Ongoing Police-NUP Conflict: Persistent clashes between Uganda Police and NUP highlight enduring tensions in political mobilization efforts.

• Public Trust Erosion: Repetitive police interventions erode public trust and raise doubts about police impartiality and credibility.

• Democracy Demands Reform: The situation underscores the imperative of transparent communication, legal adherence, and neutral law enforcement for democratic progress.

The unending conflict between the Uganda Police and Uganda’s leading opposition party, National Unity Party (NUP), has once again grabbed nationwide consideration.

A few weeks ago, NUP party, notified the public about its strategy to commence their second countrywide mobilization tour. This follows the ban imposed by the Uganda Police on September 14th 2023 on NUP rallies over alleged sectarian sentiments in Luweero district. The party drives resumed unluckily on 22nd May as the police intercepted them en route to their scheduled destination, Kamuli district. Two days later on May 24th, the same action transpired when a delegation of the party was blocked once again by the police and military at Ssezibwa bridge.

During all this saga, several queries arise: Did the party authentically inform the police about their prevailing programs as they claim? If so, did the police ratify their notification? Are there preliminaries that were to be met by the party and were not hence justifying the blockage? Were the crowds of the NUP a threat to the welfare of the residents and the smooth running of activities in those places, as alleged by the police? All these questions demand responses that have not yet been provided, consequently giving ground to public speculation.

We cannot overlook the fact that it is a habitual practice of the police to intercept and prevent this party’s movements. The supporting premise to the police’s action has always been “the party never informed us about their plans.” On the other hand, the party’s top leadership has continuously come up to defend their attempts to conduct their drives, emphasizing how they notified the police, and in many cases, exhibiting their letters of notification to the public.

Amidst this tug of war between the police and party, the public remains at the task of determining the just side of the two conflicting bodies. Many questions arise with limited responses. Where does this leave the credibility of the police? Why would an institution that has been allegedly been notified go against the party that has rendered time to notify and acquire resources to secure places of meeting?

Luckily, the police have indulged in discussions with the party leaders and liaised with them on key points to follow before engaging in their countrywide mobilization tour. I presume that in our democratic country, any individual has a right to have a political affiliation of their choice. This entails freedom of expression. This must be clearly expressed because opposition leaders and their supporters are undergoing seasons of catastrophic insurgencies that deprive them of their mandate and their form of expression.

These clashes between the NUP and government security agencies, particularly the police do not stand in isolation. There is a long history of hide and seek games between opposition political parties and the police, even before the appearance of NUP at the opposition political frontline. For so many years, state security apparatuses have risen against opposing political parties. The other question that remains unanswered is whether they do this under the directive of the government or otherwise.

Examining this issue from a legal perspective, the actions of the police drive us to pose significant questions about the police’s understanding of the constitution. Our good constitution guarantees liberty of assembly. Is it the case that the police never understood this? Or else, should we say that freedom of assembly and expression is limited to a certain faction of the populace, hence treating opposition parties the way it does. I opine that ensuring perfect law enforcement ought to work within the constitution parameters, not only as a demand of law but as a foundation of democratic authority too.

The police should observe the doctrine of preserving law and order in the different places where these people have staged their rallies. If they cause mayhem, then the responsible party should be held accountable and brought to courts of law to face these allegations rather than being held incommunicado. Therefore, the point at hand is that the police should guide these political rallies in all ways possible in order to maintain law and order, rather than blocking the opposition from accessing different places as they traverse the country. This approach ought to reflect the way the police acts in regard to the rallies held by the regime officials where no traces of bullets neither a single teargas canister is seen, in contrast to its treatment of the opposition.

Whenever the police suppresses opposition political drives, the effects are not light as they may appear. To begin with, the public loses trust in the police. This is a clear manifestation that the police is inclined to one party, at the expense of the others. The police as well loses credibility. Whenever citizens feel their rights infringed, the resulting atmosphere is characterized by disengagement. In turn, participation in national civic activities declines. We know well the adverse effects of that.

In face of all this, considering crucial actionable restructurings is inevitable. There is need to consolidate civil society organizations in a bid of supporting transparency in state procedures. I do not know whether the electoral commission sees all this, but if so, it ought to act independent as its name suggests, rise up and protect its oppressed children (the opposition) from unfair treatment. The electoral commission and judiciary ought to be free from executive influence, nevertheless, work in harmony. We should not always wait for the voices from international communities to see that we are in wrong. Though external diplomatic pressure and other international programmes that reinforce good governance play a pivotal role in ensuring democratic progressions, the prime work remains solely ours at a local (national) level. Charity begins at home.

In the end, the strife between the police and NUP is an indicator of one of the challenges we are still facing as we long to achieve democratic government. There is need of transparency in communication, abiding to the standing legal standards and neutrality in law enforcement. It is incumbent on all relevant stakeholders in this case, the government, opposition and the civil society to work together in harmony and foster a democratic society in the Pearl of Africa.