Is Uganda Police’s Interruption of NUP Country Mobilisation Tours Justified?

In recent weeks, the National Unity Platform (NUP) has faced repeated and unjustified interruptions of their countrywide mobilisation tours by the Uganda Police. These disruptions have raised significant concerns about the fairness and impartiality of law enforcement in the political landscape of Uganda.

The police have cited several flimsy reasons for these interruptions, chief among them being the NUP’s alleged failure to comply with police requests to provide the number of attendees expected at their rallies. This justification appears both arbitrary and impractical, given the dynamic nature of political rallies and the difficulty in predicting exact attendance figures.

Moreover, the police have abrogated their fundamental responsibility of maintaining law and order by asserting that they cannot provide adequate security for the large crowds that NUP rallies attract. Instead, they have placed the onus on NUP to ensure their own security arrangements are sufficient before granting permission for rallies. This stance is a clear abdication of the police’s duty to protect citizens and ensure public safety during lawful assemblies.

The double standards exhibited by the Uganda Police are glaring. While NUP faces continuous hindrances, other political entities are afforded a free pass to conduct their mobilisation activities without interference. This selective application of the law raises questions about the impartiality of the police force and its role in the political process.

A particularly stark example of these double standards is the recent political activities of Lt. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the President’s son and a serving army officer. Despite UPDF regulations that bar serving officers from engaging in partisan politics, Lt. Gen. Kainerugaba has been actively involved in political rallies. His activities often lead to the closure of major roads in the capital city, causing significant disruption. Yet, the police have remained conspicuously silent and inactive in enforcing the regulations against him.

This selective enforcement not only undermines the credibility of the police but also exacerbates public perception of bias and partisanship within the law enforcement agencies. It is a troubling indication of the uneven playing field that opposition parties like NUP must navigate in their efforts to mobilise and engage with the electorate.

The actions of the Uganda Police in this context do not only contravene democratic principles but also set a dangerous precedent for the suppression of political dissent. For a democracy to function effectively, it is imperative that all political parties are given equal opportunity to mobilise support and communicate their messages to the public. The current approach by the police undermines these democratic ideals and threatens the very fabric of political plurality in Uganda.

In conclusion, the Uganda Police’s unjustified interruptions of NUP’s mobilisation tours, coupled with their abdication of responsibility and blatant double standards, are deeply troubling. They highlight a systemic issue within the law enforcement framework that needs urgent address to ensure fairness, equality, and the upholding of democratic values in Uganda’s political arena.