Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

TWELEVE (12) REASONS WHY THE PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT BILL 2009; SHOULD NOT BE PASSED IN ITS CURRENT

FORM

Concerns from the National Coalition on Police Accountability & Reform

Published by HURINET-U P.O. Box 21265, Kampala, Uganda. Email: policereform@hurinet.org.ug; info@hurinet.org.ug

Citation:

HURINET, Twelve (12) Reasons Why the Public Order Management Bill-2009; should Not be Passed in its Current Form, July, 2011.

HURINET 2011 -U
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publisher. This exemption doesnt however include use or reproduction for academic purposes and for purposes of informing national debate and policy formulation. This publication is facilitated by the generous support of the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Uganda.
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

ABOUT THE POLICE REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT


Despite various security reforms, policing in Uganda still bears the hall marks of its colonial past. During colonial times, the role of the police was to defend colonial interests often in blatant disregard of the human rights of the local population. This same authoritarian, oppressive machinery was maintained virtually intact by the post-independence governments of Uganda. The Police still continue to have an unpredictable image before the public. This is because there is a section of the police that is professional and knowledgeable about the best policing practices; but there is also a section that are still confined to acts of brutality, torture, dishonesty to mention but a few. This has made it very difficult to rate the performance of the police. Consequently, the institution suffers the bad image and has resulted into inadequate support and participation of the public in matters of security and combating crime. Major deficiencies still need to be tackled, such as corruption, human rights abuses and political partisanship in the current political atmosphere of emerging multi-party dispensation while the Police Force itself is beleaguered by an array of challenges to effectively carry out its constitutional mandate. In summary, there is need for a transformation of the Uganda Police Force into an accountable institution which is geared towards fulfilling the aspirations of the people of Uganda of all political thoughts and affiliation without discrimination. HURINET-Uganda has been implementing the Police Reform and Accountability Project since 2007. The overall objective of the project is to contribute to the establishment of an accountable and democratic police service that works in close cooperation with the public in order to ensure a safe and secure society in Uganda. Specifically however, the project seeks to; Enhance the capacity of civil society organizations to provide civilian oversight of the police in Uganda; Establish regional police, students, and media networks facilitate for public safety and security networks based on the premise of a shared responsibility; Disseminate and monitor recommendations of the police review process; and Advocate and engage the police and the public on public order management that promotes, and respects principles of human right and freedom in Uganda;
2
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

Central to the above is the fervor to create a platform for engagement between the civil society organization and the general public to appreciate and participate in matters of policing, opening the space for constructive dialogue towards improving the entire police, enhancing public accountability oversight role on the police by harmonizing and popularizing existing complaint mechanisms within the system. The Project is executed by HURINET-U as the chair of a working group of seven member organizations including but not limited to ACODE, FIDA, HURICO, UPAF, FHRI, ACTV and international partners of APCOF and CHRI. (The list is attached hereto as Annex A). The analysis of this Public Order Management Bill-2009 falls largely under objective four to the project which seeks to advocate for a public order management environment that is human rights sensitive to all the stake holders regardless of their party affiliation. Central to such a framework is the law which should be facilitative rather than prohibitive of exercising of rights and freedoms which are constitutionally protected by the Constitution of Uganda.

Project Team James Nkuubi Andrew Bahemuka Patrick Tumwine

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

CONTENTS
Introduction ___________________________________________ 5 A Summary of Concerns on the Pom Bill ______________________ 8 1. Part I:Preliminary & Principle of Managing Public Order ________ 15 2. Part II of the Bill: Regulation of Public Meetings ____________16 2.1 Broad Interpretation and Non-Precision in Definition of _______________________________ 16 Various Terms Used 2.2 Immense Discretionary Powers of the Inspector General of Police; Possible Abuse? ______________________________18 2.2.1 Vagueness and Possible Abuse of the Scope of Regulation Powers __18 2.3 The Blemished Provision for Judicial Supervision ___________19 2.3.1 Time Factor and Delay Tactics in the Process; How facilitative of upholding the rights? S. 8 (4) __________________________19 2.4 Consititutionality of the Bill in Relation to the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression; Thought & Belief; Assembly and Demonstration and Assocaition & Right to Political Participation _ 21 2.4.1 The Freedom of Association ___________________________ 21 2.5 Intimidation, Detterent and Fear Prone Legislation: Threatening and Shrinking the Public Space _______________________ 23 2.5.1 Criminal Liability for Organizers (Section 11 (1) (g)) __________ 23 2.5.2 Use of Public Address System (Section 12) _________________ 24 2.5.3 Clearance letter from the proprietor of the premises __________ 24 2.5.4 Prevention or Stopping a Public meeting __________________ 25 2.5.5 Burdensome responsibilities of the Participants and organizers ____ 25 2.5.6 Use of Fire Arms by the Police _________________________ 26 2.5.7 Use of the Public Address System _______________________ 27 2.5.8 Gazetted areas and superfluous discretionary powers of the Minister (section 14 (1)) ___________________________________ 27 3. Other Possible Mechanisms of Dealing with Public Order Management ___________________________________ 30 3.1 The Guidelines on Public Demonstrations: A first point of reference ______________________________________ 28 4. Conclusion _____________________________________ 30 5. Police Accountability and Reform Project Working Group _ 31

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION

________________________________________
Following the public disturbances that have rocked the country in the past most notably the Mabiira Forest anti-give away demonstrations of 2007, the September riots of 11th 2009 and the Walk to Work demonstrations which claimed more than 40 lives and destruction of property worth of billions of shillings, the agitation for a law governing demonstrations and public assemblies reached the epitome. Consequently, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Uganda Police Force proposed a Public Order Management law (currently a bill). The Bill seeks to make provision for the regulation of public meetings; duties and responsibilities of police, organizers and participants in relation to public meetings; to prescribe measures for safeguarding public order and for related matters. The Bill purportedly seeks establish a more detailed legal framework for ensuring public order management in Uganda. Whereas the measure is laudable, the Bill in its current forms has raised a lot of concerns across the divide with different sections of the public interpreting the move as reactionary meant to crack down and limit the space for demonstrations and public assemblies which are constitutionally protected freedoms and rights in the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. In the following report, HURINET and the National Coalition on Police -U Accountability and Reform present their concerns on the Public Order Management Bill in its current form. In doing so, HURINET takes cognizance -U of the efforts the Ugandan Government and more particularly the Uganda Police Force has undertaken to protect the Citizens of Uganda and their property as well as their unwavering commitment to the prevention and detection of crime of any kind and does salute the government on these achievements. The above notwithstanding, while we all strife for a safer world to live in, the means of combating and prevention of crime and more specifically public disorder should be in consonance with the human rights standards universally acknowledged and acceptable, binding and domestically provided for under the Uganda Constitution of 1995 as amended in 2005. Anything less than this is seen as an affront to human rights of all citizens enshrined under chapter four of Ugandas celebrated Constitution.

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

In the same vein, HURINET-U recognizes the fact that under Article 43 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, there is a general limitation on the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms provided for by the Constitution under the Bill of Rights in Chapter 4 but even then, this should be within what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society or what is provided for in the Constitution. So whatever provision that is propounded in the name of Article 43 of the Constitution has to pass the test of acceptability and justifiability in a free and democratic society. The foundations of the right to participation are shaped by the possibility of any individual to be involved in decision-making, which affects her/his, interests. This can be through exercising the freedom to vote representatives and stand for an electoral office. Additionally are the freedoms of association, assembly and demonstrations as conduits of expression and political participation. These rights form the bases for any representative, democratic process, active civil society, and ensure that public affairs are truly public. For that matter, any law that seeks to ensure public order should not only be reflective of the ideals above but should also protect them. Unfortunately, the POM Bill as stands now, though laudable in some aspects such as emphasizing the shared responsibility of security and public safety with the public and the police (section 3), it is still wanting in a number of issues as discussed below. In its current form, the bill cannot be an enabling piece of legislation as Uganda strives to achieve its democratization aspirations of liberty, equality, rule of law and constitutionalism. Passing it into law as it stands currently would be a mockery of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and the Judiciary arm of the government, which is the custodian of justice in this country. The action would set Uganda on bad footing in relation to its obligations under international human rights law instruments to which it is bound. Additionally, the government of Uganda is enjoined to govern the country basing on the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 as amended in 2005. Incarnate in this constitution are National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy that should guide the government in its decisions on issues affecting the nation. These objectives and directive principles are enforced in courts of law and indeed they are binding. The same principles are necessary during the crating of laws for ultimately; all laws enacted have to be in tandem with the governance principles provided for in the Constitution of the republic of Uganda. Among them include;
6

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

A. Objective XXVIII of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy which provides that the foreign policy of Uganda shall be based on the principles of inter alia, respect for international law and treaty obligations. Hence, Uganda is enjoined to pay allegiance to this provision in alluding to the above international standards portrayed above. All proposed laws therefore must meet international standards of human rights as depicted in various international law treaties that Uganda is party to. B. National Objectives and Directive principles of State policy II provides that the state shall be based on democratic principles which empower and encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in their own governance. This report is divided into three parts, the first including this introduction entails a situational analysis of the current dilemmas of public order management in Uganda today and questions whether only the LAW is the solution to this quagmire. The second part entails an analysis of the bill and makes deductions on the constutionality and human rights sensitivity of the proposed sections especially when tested against international human rights laws instruments and standards that Uganda is party and the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. The third part details the various other modes of public order management that can be adopted involving both the citizens and the police working together to avert further clashes as has been the trend.

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

________________________________________

A SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ON THE POM BILL


________________________________________
Below are some of the pressing anomalies incarnate within the Public Order Management Bill-2009 as it stands currently. The Bill is meant to provide for the regulation of public meetings: duties and responsibilities of police; organizers and participants in relation to public meetings; to prescribe measures for safeguarding public order and for related matters. The Bill has been tested against International Human Rights Law, Regional Human Rights Law Standards as set by the United Nations and the African Union General Assemblies and the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 as amended in 2005 which is the supreme law of Uganda. On the whole, the POM Bill is unconstitutional for it contradicts a substantial number of human freedoms and rights both directly and indirectly as provided for under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as explained briefly below,

Scenes such as these have been very prevalent in Uganda, indicating the problems surrounding the public order management sphere in the country. The environment has been marred with brutality from the Police against the civilians as well as civilians against the police sometimes leading to destruction of property worth billions of shillings.

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

1. Constitutionality of the bill in relation to the right to freedom of speech and expression; thought and belief; assembly, association and demonstration
By legislating to control as opposed to democratic regulation of public assemblies/ meetings that focus on the efficacy of government and its agencies and political organs, the Bill infringes on Article 29 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the Constitution of Uganda which provides for the freedom of speech and expression; freedom of thought, conscience and belief; freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organizations respectively.1 The Bill subjects the exercising of the above rights to the discretion of the Inspector General of Police who can prohibit or allow the holding of a public meeting.

2. Undermining the Rule of law and Constitutionalism in Uganda


The Bill undermines the rule of law, constitutionalism and independence of the judiciary by seeking to revive section 32 of the Police Act which was held unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Muwanga Kivumbi v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 9/05). Court noted that the section which required Ugandans to seek permission from the Inspector General of Police before exercising their right to demonstrate and assemble was unconstitutional. It held that these powers to the IGP to determine the holding of an assembly were "prohibitive" rather than "regulatory." The annulled section 32 is revived in sections 4, 5 & 7 of the POM Bill.

3. Introduction of Retrospective Legislation


In relation to the above, the Bill introduces retrospective legislation when it grants the Inspector General of Police (IGP) immense discretionary powers of refusing or accepting the holding of assembly/public meeting. Section 32 of the Police Act which provided these powers were annulled in Muwanga Kivumbi v. Ag (Constitutional Petition No. 9/05). Even in light of that glaring constitutional Court judgment, sections 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the POM Bill resurrect the above unconstitutional section. Resultantly, this in contradiction with Article 92 of the Constitution of Uganda which provides that Parliament shall not pass any law to alter the decision or judgment of any court as between the parties to the decision or judgment.
1 The same right is also protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 9 of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights.
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

4. Immense discretionary powers of the inspector general of police hence susceptible to abuse
Section 4, 5 and 7 of the POM Bill provides the Inspector General of Police (or an authorized officer) with enormous powers to regulate the conduct of all public meetings. There under, there is no established mechanism that can or should be followed by the IGP in exercising his power of regulation. Its all upon the IGPs will! The lack of precision in the grant of these powers of regulation gives room for exercise of unlimited, unsafeguarded discretion with serious ramifications for the rule of law and human rights and ultimately the right to assembly and demonstration. The process or/ and procedures or/ and grounds of this regulation should not be left to the whims of the IGPs discretion but should be made clear probably with guidelines upon which the IGP can base in executing this power of regulation. Ugandas past experience with security authorities that yielded much discretionary powers and how they run government business are a warning enough about what violations this power can be used to do to the detriment of the Citizens of Uganda.

5. Intimidation, deterrent, burdensome and fear prone legislation: threatening and shrinking the public space
The Bill is largely covered with deterrent, impractical, burdensome provisions branded responsibilities placed upon the organizers and participants of public meetings which are unattainable. Among them include Section 11 which provides for the responsibilities of the participants and organizers. They include among others ensuring that all the participants are unarmed and peaceful; ensure that statements made to the media and public d o not conflict with any existing laws of Uganda and undertake to compensate any party or person that may suffer loss or damage from any fall out of the public meeting. There already existing laws that can deal decisively with the spoilers of public meetings without burdening the organizers with duties beyond their capacity to handle. The organizers of public meetings are not trained in security, intelligence related skills to identify and disarm an assailant. This is the work of the Uganda Police Force and the organizers can only offer at most, co-operation and not take on duties they have no mandate and skills to execute.

Requirement to state estimated number of people to attend and clearance letter


Section 7 of the POM bill provides for the need for a person who intends to hold a public meeting to get a clearance letter from the proprietor of the premises
10
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

where the public meeting is going to take place (Section 7(2) (d)) and the estimated number of people expected at the gathering (Section 7(2) (c)). Owing to the fact that public meetings are platforms of mass political participation, this provision thus is a burdensome and impracticable as it is intricate to approximate the number of people who will attend the public. It is a restraining provision meant to discourage organizers of the public meetings. The clearance letter from the proprietor cannot be divorced from past conduct of government where those thought or perceived to be sympathizers to the opposition have been bullied and hassled such as radio stations that have hosted opposition leaders in the past. Consequently, this section may be deterrent since not so many people in Uganda today may want to be dubbed oppositional as a result of hiring out their premises to the members of the community with divergent views from those of the government.

6. The Bill is an infringement on the right to political participation


It seeks to not only control the public gatherings but also what the participants discuss therein. The Bill subjects the holding of a public meeting to the whims of the Inspector General of Police or his authorized officer and further provides under section 6 (1) that a public meeting is a procession, demonstration...of three or more personsat which principles, policy, actions or failure of any government; political party or political organization, whether or not-that party of organization is registered under of any applicable law, are discussed. By this, it defeats National Objectives and Directive principles of State policy II which provides that the state shall be based on democratic principles which empower and encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in their own governance. When one harasses members of the populace convened lawfully to discuss the principles, policy, actions or failure of any government, political party or political organization yet these notions are central to the governance of the country, participation is denied hence infringing on their constitutional right.

7. The Bill is marred with broad interpretation and non-precision in definition of various terms used hence susceptible to abuse
In particular, the definitions of public place, public meeting are so wide in application that they are subject to abuse yet they are central to the determination of a lawful public assembly. The latter is defined as a gatheringof three persons (Section 6). Other terms include Reasonable Cause under section 8 (1) (c) The Bill provides that where the authorized officer has reasonable cause as to why the proposed meeting cannot take place, then it cannot take place.
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

11

How reasonable is reasonable? There may be risks that what is reasonable to the authorized officer may be actually a blatant violation of the right to assembly and demonstration and therefore unjustified before the Courts of the law. The practicality of monitoring any possible three persons discussing actions or failure of government is questionable. The provision may be abused by law enforcement officers hiding under its being ambiguous. The fact that this offers notions of wide spread interpretation, means that the authorized office can/ may read into this law or provisions anything that suits the interests of the Executive or higher authorities above him/her or him/herself. This may have grave ramifications for human rights the ultimate being the total banning of demonstrations/or public gatherings hiding under the convenient legal phrases of reasonable cause.

8. The Blemished Provision for Judicial Supervision


Sections 8(4) and 8(5) of the POM Bill provide that a person aggrieved by the decision of the authorized officer other than the Inspector General of Police under this section, may within 14 days appeal to the Inspector General of Police. Section 8 (5) provides that a person aggrieved by the decision of the Inspector General of Police may, within thirty days-appeal to the High Court. On appealing to the IGP who disallows the meeting in the first, one is asking the IGP to review the lawfulness of his own decision, at least implicitly. The above two sections are an infringement on the right to a fair hearing and contradiction of the old time rule that a man cannot be a judge in his own case. How fair and just is a mechanism where one aggrieved by a decision by the IGP appeals to the IGP?

9. Time Factor and Delay tactics in the Process; How facilitative of upholding the rights?
Under section 8 (4), one can only appeal the decision of the authorized officer to the IGP within 14 days. Under section 8 (5), a person aggrieved by the decision of the IGP may within 30 days appeal to the High Court. In total, the time an aggrieved party can take is 44 days until his or her appeal is accorded a listening ear. The above provisions are defeatist in nature aimed at suppressing further the rights and freedoms of Ugandans to demonstrate and assemble. The nature of demonstrations/assembling by people is prompted by immediate concerns to which people have to express their stand/view point on the matter and as thus for maximum impact, time is of the essence.

12

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

10. Superfluous discretionary powers of the Minister


Under section 14 (1) of the POM Bill, the Minister as a lone individual is empowered to declare that in any particular area in Uganda, it is unlawful for any person to convene a public meeting. The minister is supposed to reach this decision guided by his opinion that it is desirable in the interests of public tranquility, to restrict the people of Uganda from exercising the right to assembly! Powers of the Minister to gazette a place for purposes of public tranquility are too wide; there is no procedure for an oversight mechanism to check the powers granted to the IGP and the Minister under the instrument. This can further be abused when and if left to the will of an individual or the executive without any supervision for checks and balances.

11. The inclusion of use of fire arms during public assemblies is unwarranted
Section 11 of the POM Bill provides for the use of fire arms by the Police Force. The provision encompasses various cases or circumstances warranting the use of fire arms but does not provide safeguards or guidelines on when one should resort to this force. Indeed, the provision is generally below the standards set in the Police Act which introduces safeguards such as imploring the officer to only resort to fire arms only after exhaustion of other possible ways of fulfilling calming a situation; issue a warning to the offender that he or she is going to resort to the use of arms and only use arms if the offender heeds not to the warning; presence of reasonable grounds to believe that he or she or any other person is in danger of grievous bodily harm if he or she does not resort to the use of arms. International law and indeed the Police Act provide for use of only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. The inclusion of the use of fire arms within the Bill against civilians during public order management is unwarranted more especially so when they are no safeguards in position. Indeed, this should be the last resort when all avenues of calming the situations have been exhausted. Arguably the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Act already provide for the circumstances envisaged by the bill and as thus render the section redundant.

12. Erroneous provision for criminal liability to organizers for criminal acts committed by the participants attending the public meeting
Section 11 (1) (g) of the proposed law provides for the responsibilities of the organizers and among them including undertaking to compensate any party or person that may suffer loss or damage from any fall out of the public meeting; ensuring that statements made to the media and public do not conflict with any existing laws of Uganda.
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

13

The damage to property during a public meeting can only be adjudged to be a criminal act and as thus requiring personal responsibility by the perpetrator hence organizers cannot be held liable for the actions or omissions of the participants especially when they are of a criminal nature. The section is misconceived, proposed in bad faith, redundant and defeats legal maxims upon which a functional legal framework is constructed.

In some instances, the police have used pink water to dispel gatherings while in other situations; force has been albeit excessive at some instances.

14

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

________________________________________

PART I: PRELIMINARY & PRINCIPLE OF MANAGING PUBLIC ORDER


________________________________________ A) Section 3 of the Bill-Partnership in Ensuring Public Order
On a progressive note, the Bill under section 3 notes that the principle of public order management shall rest largely on the notion of shared responsibility between the police, organizers and participants of the public meeting, local authorities, owners and custodians of the venues of public meetings. This partnership is the cornerstone of maintaining security and safety. It is an affirmation that security is not a reserve for the state or the security agencies but rather for all the public. This section is progressive unfortunately it is not s stand alone and has to be viewed in tandem with the other sections within the Bill.

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

15

________________________________________

PART II OFTHE BILL: REGULATION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

________________________________________ 2. BROAD INTERPRETATION AND NON-PRECISION IN DEFINITION OF VARIOUS TERMS USED

Part two of the Bill is largely related to the regulation of the public meetings. Some of the sections within this part namely section 6 provide for various meanings of particular terminologies used within the Bill which are largely broad and as thus can possibly be abused. While great effort is made in defining the different terms that are used in the Bill and their scope is known, a lot is still not clear yet its central to the granting of the permit to conduct the demonstrations. Among these include the following;

2.1 Vagueness of the terms Public Place and Public Meeting (sections 6 (1))
In particular, the definitions of public place, public meeting are so wide in application that they are subject to abuse. The latter is defined as a gathering, procession, demonstrationof three persons Under Section 2, a public place is defined as a high way or any road within the meaning of the Traffic and Road Safety Act. The terms used are defined in such a way that they all inclusive and sweeping. Henceforth, any place can be included within these definitions. Additionally, the practicality of monitoring any possible three persons discussing actions or failure of government is questionable. The provision may be abused by law enforcement officers hiding under its being ambiguous.

2.2 Reasonable Cause (section 8 (1) (c))


The Bill provides that where the authorized officer has reasonable cause as to why the proposed meeting cannot take place, then it cannot take place. Under the circumstances, it is therefore important to note the following; A. Analysis Note The above terms are loosely defined and leaving them at the discretion of the authorized officer to define and determine is not desirable. Where they are defined, the definition is so circuitous and therefore unhelpful. Some are defined in so broad a term that no meticulous guidance can be drawn there from. 2
2 In Connolly v General Construction Company 269 US page 385 at page 39, the Court noted that a statute which is so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning or differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

16

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

In practice, the authorized officers reasonable cause would have to be tested by the Courts of law through a judicially established process to check on the excesses that may arise by this designated officer. The Bill does not provide for this on first instance. How reasonable is reasonable? There may be risks that what is reasonable to the authorized officer may be actually a blatant violation of the right to assembly and demonstration and therefore unjustified before the Courts of the law. The fact that this offers notions of wide spread interpretation, means that the authorized officer can/may read into this law or provisions anything that suits the interests of the executive or higher authorities above him/ her. This may have grave ramifications for human rights the ultimate being an infringement on the freedom of demonstrations/or public gatherings hiding under the convenient but loose phrases of reasonable cause.

B. What is the Way forward then? There is need for sufficient precision, to define the above terms and make their scope clear by the law in the interpretation section or they should be subject to courts interpretation which calls for the need for the Judiciary to play a bigger role than the Inspector General of Police or the officer he authorizes as the bill proposes currently.

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

17

2.2 IMMENSE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; POSSIBLE ABUSE? 2.2.1 Vagueness and possible abuse of the Scope of Regulation Powers

Section 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the POM Bill provides the Inspector General of Police with enormous powers to regulate the conduct of all public meetings. He can delegate this power to an authorized officer. (Section 5 of the POM Bill) A. Analysis Note There under, there is no established mechanism that can or should be followed in the regulation. Its all upon the IGPs will! The lack of precision in the grant of these powers of regulation gives room for exercise of unlimited discretion with serious ramifications for the rule of law and human rights and ultimately the right to assembly and demonstration. Within regulation includes refusal and/or acceptance. In essence therefore and quite alarmingly, the IGP is being granted powers to permit exercising of the right to assembly and demonstrations and freedom of expression under the acceptable phraseology of regulation!

B. Final Deduction The above put together, this section implicitly re-introduces section 32(3) of the Police Act, a provision that which was declared unconstitutional in Muwanga Kivumbi v. Attorney General 3. In essence it seeks to re-instate in a new law, a provision that has been nullified by the Courts of law. The section also infringes on Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. The Article provides that Parliament shall not pass any law to alter the decision or judgment of any court as between the parties to the decision or judgment. Conclusively, sections 4 and 5 of the POM Bill are unconstitutional as they seek to re-introduce a law that was annulled by the Constitutional court in the above mentioned case. The above provision is contrary to article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda which provides for the freedom of assembly and demonstration and does not subject its being exercised to any ones permission.Thus the constitutionality4 of the above section is questionable.

which connotes that statutory, administrative and other forms of provisions must be crafted in compliance with the basic principles, spirit, or system of governance.

3 Constitutional Petition No.9/05 4 Constitutionality refers to the extent to which a particular statutory or administrative provision is consistent with a Constitution.This concept is not the same as constitutionalism

18

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

Hence this brings into play Article 2 of the constitution to the effect that the Constitution is supreme and any law that is inconsistent with it is to the extent of the inconsistency, void. C. What is the Way Forward then? The process or/ and procedures or/and grounds of this regulation should not be left to the whims of the IGPs discretion but should be made clear probably with guidelines upon which the IGP can base on in executing this power of regulation. Ugandas past experience with security authorities that yielded much discretionary powers and how they run government business are a warning enough about what violations this power can be used to do to the detriment of the Citizens of Uganda.

2.3 THE BLEMISHED PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL SUPERVISION 2.3.1 Sections 8(4) and 8(5) of the POM Bill provide that a person aggrieved by the decision of the authorized officer other than the Inspector General of Police, may within 14 days appeal to the Inspector General of Police. Section 8 (5) provides that a person aggrieved by the decision of the Inspector General of Police may, within thirty days-appeal to the High Court.
A. Analysis Note The above two sections are an infringement on the Right to a Fair Hearing and Contradiction of the old time rule that a man cannot be a judge in his own case. An aggrieved person is given a right to appeal to the Inspector General of Police to review his own decision! He bestows delegated powers upon the authorized officers in the first place and therefore the authorized officer is indeed IGP incarnate. On appealing to the IGP who in the first instance delegates the powers to the authorized officer, one is asking the IGP to review the lawfulness of his own decision, at least implicitly. B. Final Deduction The above provision is against the well know principle of law that a man cannot be a judge in his own case (IGP revisiting his own decision). The IGP or his authorized officer is not an independent and impartial adjudicating authority established by law as is required by Article 50 of the Constitution. Although an aggrieved person is given a right to appeal to the High Court for judicial review of the IGPs decision, this forum comes long after the harm will have occurred.
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

19

C. What is the way forward then? In a democratic society, every person is entitled to a fair hearing by an independent adjudicating tribunal established by law in the determination of the existence or extent of his or her rights and obligations. Article 28 of the constitution of Uganda is clear on this right. The section defeats this cardinal principle of justice and as thus unconstitutional.

2.3.2 Time Factor and Delay tactics in the Process; How facilitative of upholding the rights? Section 8 (4),
Under section 8 (4), one can only appeal the decision of the authorized officer to the IGP (a position already precarious as discussed above) within 14 days. Under section 8 (5), a person aggrieved by the decision of the IGP may within 30 days appeal to the High Court. In total, the time an aggrieved party can take is 44 days until his or her appeal is accorded a listening ear. A. Analysis Note The above provisions are defeatist in nature aimed at suppressing further the rights and freedoms of Ugandans to demonstrate and assemble. The nature of demonstrations/assembling by the people is prompted by immediate concerns to which people have to express their stand/view point on the matter. Some of these issues can only be handled at the time of happening so as to have an impact. So, some demonstrations are spontaneous in nature. This is so especially when one considers that demonstrations is a form of activism and political participation in one respect. The above time lag frustrates the actual purpose of demonstrations. Justice rendered when an issue of contention has become stale is justice denied. The above provisions oust the jurisdiction and the possible remedies of the courts of law to the aggrieved parties in total violation of their freedoms and rights.

B. What is the Way Froward then? The process of appealing the refusal to hold a demonstration should be subjected an independent and impartial judicial tribunal in particular the High court at first instance and within the shortest time possible. In this forum, the state would have to satisfy the court, the custodian of the rule of law and human rights that it has a case that warrants the refusal of a particular group from holding the demonstration or gathering.This is the notion of checks and balances (accountability) of the organs of government that is currently lacking in the bill and thus makes it prone to abuse.
20
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

2.4 CONSITITUTIONALITY OF THE BILL IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION; THOUGHT & BELIEF; ASSEMBLY AND DEMONSTRATION AND ASSOCAITION &RIGHT TO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 2.4.1 Section 6 (1) (a) of the POM Bill legislates to curb any three persons in an assembly, procession or demonstration in or on any public road as defined in the Traffic and Road Safety Act or other public place or premises wholly or partly open to the air at which the principles, policy, actions or failure of any governmentare discussed.
The section extends to curtail all pressure groups or gatherings to form pressure groups to hand over petitions to any person or to mobilize or demonstrate support for or opposition to the views, principles, policy, actions or omissions or any person or body of persons or institution including any government administration or governmental institution. A. Analysis Note & Final Deduction Incarnate in the section is barring of political participation since a discussion on the principles, policy, actions or failure of any government is indeed political participation. Thus, the section infringes on Article 38 of the Constitution of Uganda. It provides that every Ugandan citizen has the right to participate in the affairs of government, individually or through his or her representatives in accordance with law. It further provides that every Ugandan has a right to participate in peaceful activities to influence the policies of government through civic organizations. The section infringes on Article 29 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the constitution of Uganda which provides for the freedom of speech and expression; freedom of thought, conscience and belief; freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organizations respectively. The same right is also protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 9 of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 5.

5 Under the African system, the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa was adopted by the African Commission in 2002.
It stresses the fundamental importance of freedom of expression as an individual human right, as a cornerstone of democracy and as a means of ensuring respect for all human rights and freedoms. Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

21

2.4.2 The freedom of association


The right to association is provided for under Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association under article 20. The same right is provided for under Article 22 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). A. Analysis Note The bill seeks to restrict the freedom of association which allows individuals to join together to pursue and further collective interests in groups, such as sports clubs, political parties, NGOs and corporations. The freedom of association is comprehensive; it includes the right to form and join association freely, but in order for the right to be enjoyed, associations themselves must be free from unnecessary intrusion by government. The bill seeks to be an arm of interference into the enjoyment of this right. B. Final Deduction The bill infringes on article 25 of the ICCPR provides that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunitywithout unreasonable restrictions to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives Conclusively, this overly ambiguous and impractical provision (as earlier noted) is infringing on the right to political participation of the citizenry of Uganda. In the same vein, the UN Human Rights Committee which interprets the ICCPR notes that Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people.6 It further notes that: The conduct of public affairs, referred to in paragraph 25 (a), is a broad concept which relates to the exercise of political power, in particular the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers. It covers all aspects of public administration, and the formulation and implementation of policy at international, national, regional and local levels. 7

6 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 25 (57), General Comments under article 40, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Adopted by the Committee at its 1510th meeting, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7 (1996). 7 Id, Para 5

22

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

Further, the Committee notes that; Citizens may participate directly by taking part in popular assemblies which have the power to make decisions about local issues or about the affairs of a particular community and in bodies established to represent citizens in consultation with government. Where a mode of direct participation by citizens is establishedno unreasonable restrictions should be imposed.8 The Committee also notes that; Citizens also take part in the conduct of public affairs by exerting influence through public debate and dialogue with their representatives or through their capacity to organize themselves. This participation is supported by ensuring freedom of expression, assembly and association. 9 Finally the committee notes that Freedom of expression, assembly and association are essential conditions for the effective exercise of the right to vote and must be fully protected.10 It follows therefore that the bill in its current form and more specifically the afore mentioned section, seek to establish an unreasonable restrictions, on the freedom of association, assembly and demonstration which are tenets of the right to political participation.

2.5 INTIMIDATION, DETTERENT AND FEAR PRONE LEGISLATION: THREATENING AND SHRINKING THE PUBLIC SPACE 2.5.1 Criminal Liability for Organizers (Section 11 (1) (g))
Section 11 (1) (g) of the proposed law provides for the responsibilities of the organizers and among them including undertaking to compensate any party or person that may suffer loss or damage from any fall out of the public meeting. A. Analysis Note The provision is meant to be deterrent for any prospective conveners of public gatherings. Indeed, the past gatherings have delved into violence and damage to property of various individuals. The law seems to be dealing with symptomatic offshoots of gatherings gone wrong but does not address the underlying causes.
8 Id, Para 6. 9 Id, Para 8. 10 Id, Para 12
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

23

2.5.2 Use of Public Address System (Section 12)


Section 12 provides for written permission from the Inspector General of Police (IGP) or an authorized officer of or above the rank of inspector for one to use a public address system in a public place. A. Analysis Note The proposal within the bill to seek permission for the use of a public address system is not only redundant but unreasonable. Its not fathomed that there can be a demonstration without any communication means to the participants in the event. If anything, this issue should be addressed in the notice of intention to hold the demonstration by the organizer simply noting that he/she will use a particular type of communication mode. Other than this, one can get the inclination that this is yet another provision meant to frustrate the exercising of the right to demonstration and assembly as a deterring burden. Besides, should the Police think that unbearably loud noise has been generated, then the Penal Code Act caters for noise pollution/public nuisance and should be used under such circumstances.

2.5.3 Clearance letter from the proprietor of the premises and estimated number of people expected in the Public meeting
Section 7 of the Bill provides for the need for a person who intends to hold a public meeting to give a notice to the IGP seven days before the public meeting takes place but not more than 15 days. There should also be a clearance letter from the proprietor of the premises where the public meeting is going to take place (Section 7(2) (d)) and the estimated number of people expected at the gathering (Section 7(2) (c)). A. Analysis Note: Generally, public meetings are open to all the public owing to the fact that the issues mostly under discussion are matters of concern to everyone. If anything, public meetings are platforms of mass political participation. This provision thus is a burdensome and impracticable as it is intricate to approximate the number of people who can attend the public meeting. It is a restraining provision meant to discourage organizers of the public meetings. What indeed happens when the number of people indicated is exceeded? Efforts should be geared towards co-operation between the Police and the organizers to provide security for whoever happens at the public meeting.
24
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

The clearance letter from the proprietor cannot be divorced from past conduct of government where those thought or perceived to be sympathizers to the opposition have been bullied and hassled such as radio stations that have hosted opposition leaders in the past. Consequently, this section may be deterrent since not so many people in Uganda today may want to be dubbed oppositional as a result of hiring out their premises to the members of the community with divergent views from those of the government.

2.5.4 Prevention or Stopping a Public meeting


Section 9 of the Bill provides for the IGP or an authorized officer at the rank of or above Inspector to prevent or stop the holding of a public meeting. A. Analysis Note The section is redundant in light of the fact that what it seeks to provide for is already prevalent under Sections 65-70 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120.

2.5.5 Burdensome responsibilities of the Participants and organizers


Section 11 provides for the responsibilities of the participants and organizers. They include among others ensuring that all the participants are unarmed and peaceful; ensure that statements made to the media and public do not conflict with any existing laws of Uganda and undertake to compensate any party or person that may suffer loss or damage from any fall out of the public meeting and as thus it infringes on freedom of expression. A. Analysis Note The section seeks to restrict freedom of expression and free speech. Indeed, some of the public meetings may be convened to discuss about unconstitutional, oppressive laws with an aim to influence their amendment. Thus speaking against a bad law is actually free speech. Organizers cannot be held for the words of any participant if found criminal since criminal liability is personal. The provision is misconceived and proposed in bad faith. It is the responsibility of the Police Force to maintain public order and security. It is trained and skilled in executing this work including detecting arms and disarming those armed illegally. The Police cannot abscond from its duty of intelligence gathering to ensure that participants in a public meeting are not armed. The most that it can seek from the organizers is installation of metal detecting equipment as a way of co-operation.
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

25

By the Police shifting responsibility of security to the organizers is not only desirable but it defeats the purpose for their existence and obligations under article 212 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. The malicious damage to property, if it occurs, during a public meeting and it is found to be a criminal act points to personal responsibility by the perpetrator. The organizers cannot be held liable for the actions or omissions of the participants especially when they are of a criminal nature. The Section is redundant and defeats legal maxims upon which a functional legal framework is based that criminal responsibility is personal save for vicarious liability grounds for which are not existent under the circumstances. .

2.5.6 Use of Fire Arms by the Police


Section 11 of the Bill provides for the use of fire arms by the Police Force. A. Analysis Note The provision encompasses various cases or circumstances warranting the use of fire arms but does not provide safeguards or guidelines on when one should resort to this force. Indeed, the provision is generally below the standards set in the Police Act which introduces safeguards such as imploring the officer to only resort to fire arms only after exhaustion of other possible ways of fulfilling calming a situation; issue a warning to the offender that he or she is going to resort to the use of arms and only use arms if the offender heeds not to the warning; presence of reasonable grounds to believe that he or she or any other person is in danger of grievous bodily harm if he or she does not resort to the use of arms. International law and indeed the Police Act provide for use of only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. The inclusion of the use of fire arms within the Bill against civilians during public order management is unwarranted more especially so when they are no safeguards in position. Indeed, this should be the last resort when all avenues of calming the situations have been exhausted. Arguably the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Act already provide for the circumstances envisaged by the bill and as thus render the section redundant. Additionally, the situation under which a police officer is authorized to use firearms under the proposed section is so extensive and subject to abuse. The provisions also contravene the standard of proportionality in the use of force to enforce the law by police.

26

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

The use of firearms is considered an acute measure. All endeavors should be made to keep out the application of firearms. Indeed, firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less severe measures are not adequate to contain or arrest the alleged wrongdoer. In each occurrence in which a firearm is released, a description of the happenings should be made without delay to the proficient powers that be in form of a report. Such are the safeguards required within the Bill but remain elusive.

2.5.7 Use of the Public Address System


Section 12 provides against the use of loudspeakers, megaphones among other gadgets unless one has secured written permission of the Inspector General of Police. A. Analysis Note This section is redundant as it reproduces the provision of section 40 of the Police Act Cap 303.

2.5.8 Gazetted areas and superfluous discretionary powers of the Minister (section 14 (1))
The Minister as a lone individual is empowered to declare that in any particular area in Uganda, it is unlawful for any person to convene a public meeting. The minister is supposed to reach this decision guided by his opinion that it is desirable in the interests of public tranquility, to restrict the people of Uganda from exercising the right to assembly! A. Analysis Note Powers of the Minister to gazette a place for purposes of public tranquility are too wide; there is no procedure for an oversight mechanism to check the powers granted to the IGP and the Minister under the instrument. There is need for a supervisory role of the courts of law to curb the possible abuses that may arise from wide discretionary powers and thereby infringe on human rights.

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

27

WHAT ABOUT RESTRICTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 43 OF THE CONSTITUTION? HOW FAR SHOULD GOVERNMENT GO?
Indeed, whereas the rights can be limited under article 43 of the Constitution, the question becomes; what is the scope of interference? Notably, restrictions must be prescribed by law which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the international law instruments that Uganda ratified such as the ICCPR and should be commensurate with the supreme law of the land, the constitution and in any case should be reasonable in the particular circumstances. The restrictions should be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedom of others.

3. OTHER POSSIBLE MECHANISMS OF DEALING WITH PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT


Whereas the law is good to set the standards of dealing with public order management, it should not and cannot be the only solution to this challenge. Indeed, the approach to the management of public order in Uganda should be multi-faceted involving all the stakeholders (the organizers-political parties, civil society organizations, the participants and the law enforcement agencies) so as whatever the solution that is proposed is owned by all and implemented as a whole.

3.1 The Guidelines on Public Demonstrations: A first point of reference


Long even before public disorder degenerated to the all low levels that Ugandans have witnessed in the past 2 years, there had been efforts by the civil society working together with the Uganda Human Rights Commission and the Uganda Police Force. Among some of the developments that emerged from this collaboration were the Guidelines on Public Demonstrations in Uganda. The guidelines were widely distributed to the populace so as to equip them with the knowledge of the various responsibilities that come with the rights of assembly and freedom to demonstrate. The Guidelines presents practical ways of dealing with demonstrations without infringing on the freedoms of the demonstrators.
28
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

Holding a planning meeting/s with the chief organizer/s of the public meeting or assembly 5 days before the meeting/demonstration for preparatory purposes; In case the demonstration cannot be held for any reason, then the Police has to provide the organizers with a written explanation and legal justification as to why the demonstration has been denied or plans of traffic changed; The Police can also intervene in the demonstration/public meeting with only reasonable force if found necessary for the sake of maintaining peace and halting criminal behavior. The Demonstrations and Processing Planning Unit (DPPU) to be based at the District Commanders Office to deal with all public meeting/assembly related issues with the Police and the organizers of such demonstrations or public meetings. This could further be facilitated by the presence of the Assigned Police Contact Officer (APCO) to deal with the traffic plan of the demonstration.11

a) The need for Crowd Marshals (Stewards) in Public Order Management There is need to share responsibility between the various stakeholders most especially the event organizers (mostly during demonstrations and street matches). Thus, there is need to develop the capacity of event self-policing by helping establish and train event facilitators (crowd marshals or stewards) in crowd management and to act as a link between the police and the crowd/ assembly leadership. The stewards would (Crowd Marshals) could come from the different political parties, CSOs among other organizations, associations within the public that have used demonstrations in the past or hope to use them in the future as a forum of freedom of expression. Such stewards could be trained by the police personnel to specifically highlight what is needed of them in self-policing the crowd/assembly. b) The monitoring, review and evaluation of public gatherings (In the aftermath of a demonstrations) / event Monitors The main focus should be targeted towards the building of an independent monitoring, review and evaluation of public assemblies mechanism. The evaluation is vital to undertake in the aftermath of a public gathering. This should be aimed at evaluating the standards used by the police in the policing of demonstrations with the sole aim of informing the transformation process of the police.
11 Guidelines on Public Demonstrations in Uganda, at 16-19
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

29

4. CONCLUSION
Against such background, it is difficult to hit equilibrium between legitimate law enforcement objectives and individual liberties such as freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate. For now, the bill remains a repressive legislation aimed at shrinking democratic, public space unless its brought in conformity with human rights standards enshrined both in the Constitution of Uganda and international human rights instruments to which Uganda is a party. HURINET-U believes that not all vices that have rocked public order management in the past shall be solved by the law. If anything, in some instances, the incapacity of the police in negotiation and engagement with public assembly organizers has contributed to the violence in these gatherings. Indeed, the role of the police under article 212 of the constitution of Uganda is to detect and prevent crime, preserve law and order and protect life and property. This it cannot do in isolation. The police should work with the public towards creation of a conducive environment within which all these rights of assembly, demonstration and expression can be enjoyed by the populace. HURINET-U recommends the adoption of the Public Demonstration Guidelines produced by the Uganda Human Rights Commission, the police and other members of the civil society fraternity.

4.1 What is the Way Froward then?


HURINET is of the view that should the bill be passed into law as it stands now, it will be in violation of the above provisions of international law, in particular the ICCPR to which Uganda is a party and absconding from its international obligation of upholding human rights. Thus the proposed law should be modified to harmonize it with the international human rights instruments that Uganda subscribes to and more importantly it should be in tandem with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

30

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM PROJECT WORKING GROUP


1. The African Centre for the Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (ACTV) The African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (ACTV) is a unique African organization that was created in June 1993 in Kampala, Uganda by African professionals drawn from different walks of life under the guidance of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). ACTV is dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights with emphasis on the health and rehabilitation of victims of torture by security agencies and armed groups. ACTV is located at Block No. 29, Plot No. 113: Owen Road (Off Tufnell Drive), Kamwokya. Website: www.actvuganda.org II. Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) is an independent, nongovernmental, non-partisan and not-for-profit human rights organization established in December 1991. It seeks to remove impediments to democratic development and meaningful enjoyment of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the 1995 Uganda Constitution and other internationally recognized human rights instruments. FHRI is located at Human Rights House, Plot 1853, Lulume Road Nsambya-Website: www.fhri.or.ug III. Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE) is an Independent Public Policy Research and Advocacy Think Tank. ACODE is one of the regional leaders in cutting-edge public policy research and analysis in a range of areas including governance, trade, environment, and science and technology. ACODE is located in Kampala, Uganda. III. Federecion International De Abogadas (FIDA)-U The Federecion International De Abogadas (FIDA)-U is a premier womens rights organization and leading spokes-organization on all human rights, governance, legal and policy issues pertaining to women as enshrined in international treaties especially the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

31

(CEDAW). FIDA-U combines law and gender to foster the rights based approach to address the power imbalances and abuses in society. FIDA is based in Kampala at Plot 11 - Kanjokya Street, Kamwokya, Uganda. IV. Human Rights Concern (HURICO) HURICO is indigenous human rights NGO committed to promoting human right awareness by educating Ugandans about their rights and obligations. It was founded in 1995. Its areas of focus include Human Rights Protection, Human Rights Education, Indigenous Peoples and Cultures among others.

INTERNATIONAL WORKING PARTNERS


I. African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) The African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF) is a network of African practitioners active in policing reform and civilian oversight over policing. The objectives of APCOF are to create and sustain public confidence in police, develop a culture of human rights, integrity, transparency and accountability within the police, promote a good working relationship between the police and the community. APCOF is based in Cape town-South Africa. II. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) CHRIs mandate is to promote awareness of and adherence to the Harare Principles, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally recognized human rights instruments and declarations made by the Commonwealth Heads of Governments as well as domestic instruments supporting human rights in the Commonwealth. The CHRI, is based in New Delhi, INDIA-Website; http:// www.humanrightsinitiative.org.

32

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

Analysis of the Public Order Management Bill-2009

33