ON A SERIOUS NOTE: ARONDA’S THREATS TO THE OPPOSITION AND THE PRESS

What these mean for freedom of expression, assembly and association

By Samuel Kamugisha

The appointment of Gen. Aronda Nyakairima as Minister of Internal affairs had raised eyebrows from opposition politicians, legal brains and the civil society. Infact, members of the opposition declared a week-long absence from the house in protest of the appointment. Following the controversial approval of the tough-talking General by the parliamentary appointments committee chaired by speaker Rebecca Kadaga on July 18^th, the serving general received instruments of office from his predecessor, Eng. Hillary Onek on 24^th July, six days later. The controversy, according to the speaker, should be blamed on the lacunas within the constitution. This is against a backdrop of article 208(2).

Aronda Nyakairima

In his maiden speech, the former Chief of defence forces sounded a stern warning against the media, the opposition and the civil society in the name of defending majority rights which he believed should precede individual rights. Aronda who is now in charge of the police and prisons vowed to crack down protests, restrain NGOs engaging in activities different from those they registered for, and to enforce stricter media regulations. Of great importance to this debate is one of those popular statements he made in this maiden communication, “In the military, once an order or statement of the mission is read like that (you just start). Reading from that statement, it is clearly that Aronda is ready to serve his master’s interest not the public interest that he professes to serve. It also sheds all the doubt about the intention of appointing him to such an office.

Article 20(1) is clear, “Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the state”. Clause 2 of the same article charges all organs and all agencies of government and all persons to respect, uphold and promote the rights and freedoms of the individual enshrined in chapter four of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Article 29 grants (a) freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and the media; (d) freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and (e) freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organizations.

Unless, Aronda officially declares that military rule (In the military, once an order or statement of the mission is read like that (you just start)) has replaced constitutional rule, (never mind that his appointment and approval harbingers the infiltration of militarism into constitutional democracy), he must be reminded of the constitution.

Nonetheless, even with this constitution, the police have been restricting the movement of the former FDC leader, Kizza Besigye and Kampala Lord Mayor, Erias Lukwago in contravention of 29(2a) as well as stopping rallies which have always turned riotous after police intervention by firing tear gas canisters and live bullets. With Aronda at internal affairs and another general as the Inspector General of Police, the issue of public interest will always come to play and persecution and detention without trial will be the order of the day. The fact that persecution and detention without trial contravene article 43 (2 a and b) has on several occasions been under looked. Closure of media houses has been in place even with the constitution in place and the recent victims were KFM, the Daily Monitor and the Red Pepper in regard to the controversial letter of renegade General and former Chief of Military Intelligence David Tinyefuza that allegedly accused the president of planning the demise of those opposed to the first son’s succeeding his father in the country’s top seat.  Also in the wake of what has been dubbed ‘The Muhoozi Project’, which government has dismissed as non existent, government has promised to move in to crack down on social media. Aronda’s crackdown on the media is most likely to include a clearout of social media.

Aronda’s warnings must not be taken lightly and neither must they be taken as new. They are just an extension of a crackdown on the media, civil society and opposition. As we slowly but surely move from budding constitutionalism to aging militarism, the media, civil society and opposition must prepare for tougher times ahead. The constitution, rule of law and the will of the people are on trial. It merits mentioning that what is constitutionally right and in public interest (never mind who defines it), is what the author of the so-called orders from above considers so. Freedom of expression, assembly and association will be on the receiving end as the regime seeks to cling onto power, not because the constitution does not consider them fundamental and inherent (in any case the constitution is clear as highlighted above) but because they are a threat to the interest of the regime. Aronda’s threats are not only unconstitutional and unfortunate but also dangerous for democracy and also set a bad precedent