When A Gun Goes Missing, Accountability Must Not Become Excessive Force

UgandaToday: When A Gun Goes Missing, Accountability Must Not Become Excessive Force

Serious Allegations Demand Urgent Answers

A disturbing incident involving a security guard accused of abandoning his duty station and allegedly using a firearm entrusted to him during a robbery has raised an equally important question: where does legitimate accountability end and excessive force begin?

https://x.com/ssembatyaisma/status/2103902683279089806/video/1

The circumstances described around the incident suggest that the supervisor involved had serious reasons to demand immediate answers.

A security guard entrusted with a firearm carries an unusual level of responsibility. If a firearm disappears from its assigned location, is allegedly taken elsewhere and is subsequently linked to a robbery, the matter is no longer simply an internal disciplinary issue.

It potentially becomes a matter of public safety and criminal investigation.

The first questions would understandably be straightforward but urgent: Where is the firearm? Who had possession of it? Why did the guard leave his post? Was the weapon used in a criminal act? Were other people involved? And how did a firearm entrusted to a security employee end up outside its authorised deployment?

Uganda’s Firearms Act places responsibilities on persons possessing firearms, including requirements relating to safe custody and preventing firearms from becoming available to people who are not lawfully entitled to possess them. The law also provides offences and penalties relating to certain unlawful uses and handling of firearms. (ULII)

Those responsibilities should not be minimised.

But A Serious Allegation Does Not Authorise Unlimited Force

At the same time, the seriousness of an allegation cannot automatically justify whatever treatment is inflicted on the person accused.

That distinction is particularly important if, as alleged, the guard had already been handcuffed and was therefore physically restrained.

Once a suspect is restrained, the objective should be to secure the person, establish the facts, recover the firearm and hand the matter over to the appropriate investigative authorities.

The question then becomes whether additional physical force is genuinely necessary to prevent escape or an immediate threat — or whether it has become punishment.

Those are fundamentally different things.

Uganda’s Constitution expressly protects every person from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 24. Article 44 further provides that freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is a right from which there can be no derogation. (ULII)

Uganda also has the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, 2012, enacted specifically to give effect to these constitutional protections. (ULII)

The existence of a potentially serious firearm offence therefore does not remove the legal and human-rights obligations owed to the person accused.

Understanding Anger Is Not The Same As Justifying Violence

It is possible to understand why a supervisor might become angry in such circumstances.

Imagine being responsible for personnel entrusted with firearms and discovering that one of those firearms may have left its assigned post and allegedly been involved in a robbery.

There could be genuine fear that someone might be injured or killed.

There could also be intense pressure to locate the firearm before it is used again.

That urgency is understandable.

But understanding the source of someone’s anger is different from concluding that every action taken in anger is justified.

A supervisor may have a legitimate reason to restrain an employee suspected of serious misconduct. That does not necessarily mean the supervisor has unlimited authority to beat that person once he is under control.

The two questions must be examined separately.

Public Visibility Does Not Automatically Make Force Lawful

There is also an argument that deserves consideration: the incident reportedly occurred in public and was recorded, rather than taking place in a secret detention facility.

That distinction may matter when assessing the circumstances.

However, visibility does not automatically determine whether physical force was proportionate or lawful.

A beating does not become acceptable simply because members of the public can see it.

Likewise, a serious allegation does not become proof of guilt merely because it is accompanied by anger, accusations or demands for an explanation.

The appropriate question should remain: What force, if any, was reasonably necessary in the circumstances?

The Reliability Of Information Matters Too

There is another reason investigators should be cautious about relying on physical punishment to obtain information.

A person who is frightened, injured or under extreme physical pressure may provide information simply because he believes that doing so will stop the assault.

That does not necessarily mean the information is accurate.

A suspect could falsely identify another person, invent a location for a missing firearm or agree with an accusation simply to escape further pain.

For an investigation involving a firearm and a potentially serious robbery, investigators need reliable evidence.

That means recovering the weapon, examining forensic evidence, establishing the guard’s movements, interviewing witnesses, checking communications and other available evidence, and determining whether the firearm was actually used in the alleged robbery.

The objective should be truth, not simply an admission.

Private Security Requires Stronger Accountability

The incident also raises broader questions about the responsibilities of Uganda’s private security sector.

The Police Act provides for regulation and control of private security organisations, including regulations concerning their operations, employment conditions, uniforms and equipment. (ULII)

Firearms issued to security personnel therefore carry responsibilities that extend beyond the individual guard and his employer.

If a guard genuinely abandoned his post with a firearm or misused a firearm, that should be investigated and, where supported by evidence, dealt with through the appropriate legal and disciplinary processes.

But accountability should operate in both directions.

The guard should be accountable for the firearm.

The employer should be accountable for its security and firearms-management systems.

And anyone exercising authority over a restrained suspect should also be accountable for the manner in which that authority is exercised.

The Public Needs Both Security And Restraint

This is not a choice between protecting society from armed criminality and protecting suspects from abuse.

Ugandans need both.

A firearm entrusted to a security guard must remain secure. If it is allegedly diverted and used in a robbery, authorities have a responsibility to investigate urgently.

But Uganda’s commitment to human dignity does not disappear when someone is accused of a serious offence.

The proper response is therefore neither to minimise the alleged firearm misconduct nor to automatically defend the beating.

The stronger principle is accountability on all sides.

A security guard entrusted with a gun must answer for what happens to that gun. A supervisor entrusted with authority must answer for how that authority is exercised.

That is where the balance between public safety, justice and human dignity lies.

Police Makes A Statement

Following a viral video circulating on social media showing a private security guard being assaulted by two male individuals, the territorial Police in Busoga North have arrested one suspect in connection with the incident. The suspect has been identified as Warom Joseph, a supervisor with Securex Private Security Company. He is alleged to have assaulted Ayub Mbadi, also a security guard employed by Securex and deployed at Kidera Sugar Works in Buyende District. Preliminary investigations indicate that the victim had been apprehended by the suspect, who accused him of stealing scrap materials from the sugar factory. It was during this incident that the alleged assault occurred. Warom Joseph is currently in Police custody and will be charged with assault as investigations into the circumstances surrounding the incident continue. We reiterate that allegations of wrongdoing should be handled through lawful procedures and that no individual should take the law into their own hands.

UgandaToday has also not independently established from the information provided that the security guard actually participated in a robbery or that the supervisor’s actions constituted unlawful conduct. Those matters require investigation and evidence.

#UgandaToday #UgandaSecurity #PrivateSecurity #FirearmsSafety #HumanRights #Justice