{UAH} RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT SOME POLITICAL LEADERS ARE DENIED PERMISSION TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS
|
4:13 PM |
No comments |
1. Since the beginning of this week, there have been reports in
the press alleging that some Political leaders have been denied
permission to hold public meetings contrary to the provisions of the
Public Order Management Act. These reports are based on wrong
information that has been availed to the press. It is necessary to
give a correct account of what happened so that the record is put
right.
2. The meetings in issue were organized by opposition leaders
including Gen. Mugisha Muntu, the FDC President, Dr.Olara Otunu, the
UPC President and civil society activist Bishop Zac Niringiye and the
subject of discussion was electoral reforms. The meetings were planned
to be convened in Soroti and Mbale over the last weekend. It was
reported that the Police in Mbale and Soroti were informed about the
meetings. This is not true. The Police were not informed at all.
3. First and foremost everybody including the organizers is in
agreement that the meetings fall under the domain of the provisions of
the Public Order Management Act and that therefore the Police should
have been notified in time. As has been explained a number of times,
the notification is necessary to enable the Police make appropriate
arrangements to provide adequate security and generally police the
event.
4. This is to reiterate that in respect to the meetings that
were to be convened in Mbale and Soroti, the Police were not notified
and therefore had not put in place the necessary arrangements for the
smooth holding of the meetings. It should be noted that such public
meetings attract any member of the public and not everybody in
attendance has good intentions. Needless to point out that at the end
of the day if anybody is hurt or a bleach of peace is committed, it is
the Police that will be answerable. The necessity to inform the Police
therefore cannot be overemphasized.
5. You may be aware that similar meetings organized by the same
organizers were held in Mbarara and Masaka before those in Soroti and
Mbale were to be held. The question that needs to be answered
therefore is why the meetings in Mbarara were appropriately convened
and those in Soroti and Mbale not held? The answer is simple. The
Police in Mbarara were informed. The Police in Mbale and Soroti were
not informed. It is not known why the organisers discriminately
informed the Police about the meetings.
6. The manner in which for instance the meeting in Mbarara was
organized clearly shows that the Organisers are very conversant with
the provisions of the Public Order Management Act. Before this meeting
was convened, the Organisers informed the Police of the intention to
hold the meeting well in time. They also proved that they have paid
for the venue (Boma grounds) and the Police cross checked and
confirmed that indeed they paid.
On receipt of the notice the Police sat in a meeting with the
Organisers and agreed on the manner the meeting was to be policed.
Among others it was agreed that there shall be no procession and that
even though the Police was to provide security the Organisers should
also have their own personnel ensuring security as well in conjunction
with the Police. Their own security was given tags by the Organisers
for ease of identification. This process shows clear collaboration and
compliance with the law on the part of the Organisers. This is the
same process that the Organisers ought to have duplicated in respect
of the meetings that were to be held in Mbale and Soroti.
7. The Organisers have claimed that they notified the Minister
of Internal Affairs of their intention to hold the meetings in Mbale
and Soroti. In this respect the Organisers developed and adopted a
different procedure that is purely their own innovation. One wonders
why they departed from the procedure they used in respect of the
meeting in Mbarara which is in accordance with the law ( S.5 of the
POM Act).The person to inform is the Inspector General of Police or an
authorized officer.
8. The Members of the Opposition are alleging a 'breakdown in
the command structure of security agencies'. Nothing is further from
the truth. There is no such breakdown as claimed. The security
agencies are effectively coordinating their operations and will
continue to do so in accordance with the provisions of the law. As
noted above, the difference in the meetings that were not allowed in
Mbale and Soroti and those that were held in Mbarara was made possible
by the way the organizer's informed or did not inform Police. Maybe
the difference in their approach was intended to create an impression
of the breakdown they are talking about.
9. The procedure for the convening of a public meeting under the
Public Order Management Act is clearly specified in S.5 of the Act and
should be as follows:
a) The notice should be in writing and should reach the
authorized officer (DPC or RPC) at least three days before the
proposed date of the public meeting.
b) The notice should be in form A in schedule 2 of the Act.
c) The notice should include the full name, physical and postal
address of the organizer and his/her immediate contact
d) It should also include consent of the owner of the venue
e) The proposed date and time of the meeting
f) The site of the meeting, the estimated number of persons
expected and the purpose of the meeting
g) In absence of Form A mentioned above, the organizer shall give
notice in writing containing the information required under Form A.
h) The notice to be given shall be in triplicate and copies shall
be given to the applicant and the proprietor of the venue where the
meeting is to be held
i) After receipt of the notice the authorized officer shall in
writing within 48 hours inform the organizer if it is not possible to
hold the proposed meeting. It follows therefore that if it is possible
to hold the meeting, the modalities shall be agreed upon as was done
in the Mbarara case.
j) In event that the organizer is aggrieved by the decision of
the authorized agent he may appear to the magistrate's court in which
jurisdiction the meeting was to take place.
k) Any organizer who contravenes these requirements commits and
offence under the POM Act.
10. There seem to have been a measure of ignorance on the provisions
of the POM Act which could be genuine or feigned hence the need to
elaborate on the procedure as above. In fact some people still refer
to the law as a bill yet it is an Act. Besides, the provisions of the
Act substantially changed from what was contained in the Bill.
11. It is hoped that with this elaboration the press will now be
able to report on these matters from an informed position and be able
to cross check the information received whether an intended meeting
complied with the provisions of the law or not.
CP Judith Nabakoba,
Police PRO
27th of March 2014
the press alleging that some Political leaders have been denied
permission to hold public meetings contrary to the provisions of the
Public Order Management Act. These reports are based on wrong
information that has been availed to the press. It is necessary to
give a correct account of what happened so that the record is put
right.
2. The meetings in issue were organized by opposition leaders
including Gen. Mugisha Muntu, the FDC President, Dr.Olara Otunu, the
UPC President and civil society activist Bishop Zac Niringiye and the
subject of discussion was electoral reforms. The meetings were planned
to be convened in Soroti and Mbale over the last weekend. It was
reported that the Police in Mbale and Soroti were informed about the
meetings. This is not true. The Police were not informed at all.
3. First and foremost everybody including the organizers is in
agreement that the meetings fall under the domain of the provisions of
the Public Order Management Act and that therefore the Police should
have been notified in time. As has been explained a number of times,
the notification is necessary to enable the Police make appropriate
arrangements to provide adequate security and generally police the
event.
4. This is to reiterate that in respect to the meetings that
were to be convened in Mbale and Soroti, the Police were not notified
and therefore had not put in place the necessary arrangements for the
smooth holding of the meetings. It should be noted that such public
meetings attract any member of the public and not everybody in
attendance has good intentions. Needless to point out that at the end
of the day if anybody is hurt or a bleach of peace is committed, it is
the Police that will be answerable. The necessity to inform the Police
therefore cannot be overemphasized.
5. You may be aware that similar meetings organized by the same
organizers were held in Mbarara and Masaka before those in Soroti and
Mbale were to be held. The question that needs to be answered
therefore is why the meetings in Mbarara were appropriately convened
and those in Soroti and Mbale not held? The answer is simple. The
Police in Mbarara were informed. The Police in Mbale and Soroti were
not informed. It is not known why the organisers discriminately
informed the Police about the meetings.
6. The manner in which for instance the meeting in Mbarara was
organized clearly shows that the Organisers are very conversant with
the provisions of the Public Order Management Act. Before this meeting
was convened, the Organisers informed the Police of the intention to
hold the meeting well in time. They also proved that they have paid
for the venue (Boma grounds) and the Police cross checked and
confirmed that indeed they paid.
On receipt of the notice the Police sat in a meeting with the
Organisers and agreed on the manner the meeting was to be policed.
Among others it was agreed that there shall be no procession and that
even though the Police was to provide security the Organisers should
also have their own personnel ensuring security as well in conjunction
with the Police. Their own security was given tags by the Organisers
for ease of identification. This process shows clear collaboration and
compliance with the law on the part of the Organisers. This is the
same process that the Organisers ought to have duplicated in respect
of the meetings that were to be held in Mbale and Soroti.
7. The Organisers have claimed that they notified the Minister
of Internal Affairs of their intention to hold the meetings in Mbale
and Soroti. In this respect the Organisers developed and adopted a
different procedure that is purely their own innovation. One wonders
why they departed from the procedure they used in respect of the
meeting in Mbarara which is in accordance with the law ( S.5 of the
POM Act).The person to inform is the Inspector General of Police or an
authorized officer.
8. The Members of the Opposition are alleging a 'breakdown in
the command structure of security agencies'. Nothing is further from
the truth. There is no such breakdown as claimed. The security
agencies are effectively coordinating their operations and will
continue to do so in accordance with the provisions of the law. As
noted above, the difference in the meetings that were not allowed in
Mbale and Soroti and those that were held in Mbarara was made possible
by the way the organizer's informed or did not inform Police. Maybe
the difference in their approach was intended to create an impression
of the breakdown they are talking about.
9. The procedure for the convening of a public meeting under the
Public Order Management Act is clearly specified in S.5 of the Act and
should be as follows:
a) The notice should be in writing and should reach the
authorized officer (DPC or RPC) at least three days before the
proposed date of the public meeting.
b) The notice should be in form A in schedule 2 of the Act.
c) The notice should include the full name, physical and postal
address of the organizer and his/her immediate contact
d) It should also include consent of the owner of the venue
e) The proposed date and time of the meeting
f) The site of the meeting, the estimated number of persons
expected and the purpose of the meeting
g) In absence of Form A mentioned above, the organizer shall give
notice in writing containing the information required under Form A.
h) The notice to be given shall be in triplicate and copies shall
be given to the applicant and the proprietor of the venue where the
meeting is to be held
i) After receipt of the notice the authorized officer shall in
writing within 48 hours inform the organizer if it is not possible to
hold the proposed meeting. It follows therefore that if it is possible
to hold the meeting, the modalities shall be agreed upon as was done
in the Mbarara case.
j) In event that the organizer is aggrieved by the decision of
the authorized agent he may appear to the magistrate's court in which
jurisdiction the meeting was to take place.
k) Any organizer who contravenes these requirements commits and
offence under the POM Act.
10. There seem to have been a measure of ignorance on the provisions
of the POM Act which could be genuine or feigned hence the need to
elaborate on the procedure as above. In fact some people still refer
to the law as a bill yet it is an Act. Besides, the provisions of the
Act substantially changed from what was contained in the Bill.
11. It is hoped that with this elaboration the press will now be
able to report on these matters from an informed position and be able
to cross check the information received whether an intended meeting
complied with the provisions of the law or not.
CP Judith Nabakoba,
Police PRO
27th of March 2014
0 comments:
Post a Comment