A RESEARCH REPORT

ASSESSING THE PROTECTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN

UGANDA

1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS………………………...………………………………………………………2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………3

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………4

OBJECTIVE (s) OF THE MAPPING EXERCISE:…………………………………………5

METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING………………………………………………..…………6

GENERAL RESPONSE TO MAPPNIG EXERCISE……………………………….……….6

THREATS OBSERVED FROM RESPONDENTS…………………………………………..7

THE PERPETRATORS/ACTORS BEHIND THE THREATS……………………………..8

CHALLENGES FACED BY HRDS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR

DUTIES……………………………………………………………………………………….9

INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION OF RESPONSES …………………………10

Figure 1: Common threats to HRDS…………………………………………………………10

Figure 2: Perpetrators………………………………………………………………………...10

Figure 3: Category of HRDS at more risk……………………………………………………11

Figure 4: Recommended intervention that worked ………………………………………….12

Figure 5: Recommended intervention that did not work…………………………………….12

Figure 6: Recommended interventions …………………………………………………..…13

RECOMMENDED PROTECTION INTERVENTION FOR HRDs………………………..13

Apendix i: Questionnaires Sample……………………………………………………...……14

3
Acronyms
DPI Defenders Protection Initiative

HRC Human rights focus

LAPSNET Legal Ad Service Providers Network

NETPIL Network for public interest lawyers

ACTV African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation

HRAPF Human rights awareness and promotion forum

HRCU Human rights Centre Uganda

NCHRDU-U National Coalition of Human rights

HRDs Human Rights Defenders

SJL Social justice leaders

RDCs Residential District Commissioners

4
4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For a number of years, the world has witnessed dynamic and complex rise security threats
towards Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) across East Africa. The National security
intelligence has been sometimes abused to attack and silence any dissenting voices.

The Foundation’s office for East Africa in partnership with the civic engagement CEG-I has
through Defenders’ Protection Initiative (DPI) conducted an online survey to measure Human
Rights Defenders’ opinions on various threats, HRDs more at risk, perpetrators behind the
threats, challenges and to suggest ways for the effective protection of HRDs in the Country.

The survey was open to all HRDs and it included eight questions. A total of 33(Thirty)
responded, the outcome of the research’s information from the ultimate data collected shall
be used to set better strategic approaches for extending practical measures and a safer
working environment for HRDs through putting in place an active human rights law, need to
strengthen the wellbeing and stress management for HRDs and need to have an updated
security plan for HRDs and disseminate it among others and need to develop and create
security plan.

The most significant human rights threats included, arbitrary arrests, beatings, assault,
intimidation, defamation, hacking and trailing among others. Other challenges included, lack
of statutory laws and legal instruments of HRDs, lack of physical and digital training, limited
or inadequate collaboration and inadequate funding among others.

As in the recent years the Government of Uganda didn’t take comprehensive measures to
investigate and prosecute cases of security force abuse and threats imposed on HRDs.

Some Non-Governmental Organizations faced legal and informal restrictions on their

activities which included freezing of accounts and closure of some HRD Organizations.

5
5. INTRODUCTION:

In recent years, the world has witnessed a dynamic and complex rise of security threats
towards Social Justice Leaders and Human Rights Defenders. Across East Africa, restrictive
laws and draconian regulations are applied as a seal of approval1 to suppress the NGO
sector . National security intelligence is sometimes abused to attacks and silence any
dissenting voice . The securitization of the COVID 19 and the unlawful management of
electoral processes as a weapon of oppression, exploitation, and suppression have taken the
shape of a standard practices in most countries. To respond to the above situation, the
Foundation's office for East Africa, in partnership with the Civic Engagement and
Government International program (CEG-I), with the Consultant's help assess the protection
of SJL and HRDs in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania, in these countries many Human rights
defenders have been victims of political riots, electoral malpractices and other advocacy
activities whenever they attend to collect information in the course of their duties.

5. OBJECTIVE (s) OF THE MAPPING EXERCISE:

1. To assess the nature and effectiveness of the HRDs and SJL protection infrastructure in
the region.

2. To Identify the contextual gaps in the HRDs and SJL protection infrastructure in Uganda.

3. To suggest strategies for improvement.

Ultimately, all three countries' findings will be compiled and used to inform the Foundation's
future protection and response strategies for the region. The exercise should answer the
following questions.

PARTICIPATION: 1. All protection and legal service providers for SJL &HRDs in Uganda,
2. All HRDs clusters (Women, Journalists, Sexual minorities, Voice and accountability, land
and environment, civil and political activists, donors. 3. All other Social Justice leaders

6
6. METHODOLOGY OF MAPPING

The survey adopted the Protection of Human Rights Defenders Management

Diagnostic Tool already developed by the consultant.
The data questionnaires were online where representatives of organization accessed
and responded to the topic .
The survey areas were Non-Government organizations country wide as long as they
had access to respond to the questions online which managed by the dedicated
personal through the email.
Delivery Approach was as follows;
a) 2-day Zoom training for all online respondent’s Civil society
b) 1-day meeting to review diagnostic tool tailoring it to the local context together
with the consultant working on the research
c) 2-day entry meeting and administration of the tool with civil society leadership
d) 4 days Data analysis and report writing by consultant
NOTE; The Main areas of mapping were;
1. Sources of common security threats to HRDs when gathering information from
the field
2. Perpetrators behind these security challenges to the HRDs in the field when
gathering information on social justice
3. Existing protection available to HRDs and how they are working
6. GENERAL RESPONSE TO MAPPNIG EXERCISE
According to the mapping on the subject matter 30 HRDs responded;

World Voices Uganda

Chapter Four Uganda
Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum
African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture
Victims (ACTV)
NETPIL
LASPNET

7
 Navigators of Development Association
Uganda Law Society Legal Aid Project
Foundation for Human Rights Initiative
Kolir Women Development Organisation
Sub-Regional Focal Person, Northern Uganda
Bugisu Civil Society Network
The Human Rights Centre Uganda
Spectrum Uganda
Early Warning Systems
Human Rights Focus
Alliance for Development (AFODE)
National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders Uganda
Gala Initiative Uganda
Busoga Governance and Social Accountability Network
Radio Pacis
Human Rights Defenders Network Busoga
Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda
Kalangala Human Rights Defenders Network (KHRDN)
Needy Community Care Association Uganda
Riamiriam Civil Society Network Karamoja
Mbarara Rise Foundation
African International Christian Ministry (AICM)
Navigators of Development Association
Defender Defenders (DD)
Action Aid
The Alternative Uganda

7. THREATS OBSERVED FROM RESPONDENTS’ LIKELIHOOD AND

IMPACT
S/ Risk Area and Impact Very Low Low Medium High Very High
N
1 Intimidation 5
2 Arbitrary Arrest 5
3 Trailing 3
4 Hacking of HRDS 4
5 Ganging 3
6 Trumped up charges 5
7 Assaults 4
8 Political threats 5
9 Evictions 3
10 Economic threats 2
11 Sexual Harassment 3
12 Defamation 5
13 Death threats 4
Risk measurement scale: (0-5)
1.1 =Very low, 2= low, 3 =medium, 4= High, 5 =Very High

8
 Chains showing an incident where a journalist was arrested at jinja secondary school tally
center on 21st January 2021 during presidential elections

8. THE PERPETRATORS/ACTORS BEHIND THE THREATS

Police, Army, RDC’s and other State Agencies

8. DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS

Assault, refers to inflicting physical harm or verbal attack

Threat, a statement of intention to inflict pain, injury, damage on someone either for
something done or not done

Trailing refers to draw or be drawn along behind someone

Hacking refers to gaining of unauthorized access to data or computers, telephones

Harassment refers to any unwanted physical or verbal behavior that offends or humiliates
you.

Arrests refers to the action of seizing someone and taking them into custody

Arbitrary arrests refer to the arrest or detention of an individual in a case where there is no
likelihood or evidence that they committed a crime.

Torture act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone.

Legal aid is a cornerstone of the justice system and contributes to equitable justice by the
whole community.

9
Capacity building refers to the process of developing and strengthening the skills, instincts,
abilities, processes that organizations need to survive, adapt and thrive.

Perpetrators refers to a person who carries out a harmful, illegal or immoral act.

Risk refers to a situation involving exposure to danger.

Social protection it involves preventing, managing, overcoming situations that adversely

affect people’s wellbeing.

9. CHALLENGES FACED BY HRDS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR

DUTIES
Inadequate awareness of the mandate of some Human Rights Defenders Organizations
has made most of them to fall into the hands of the perpetrators and this has made most
HRDS die mysteriously or get arrested unknowingly

Lack of statutory laws and legal instruments for HRDs that are subject to political
interference and are often used by Government to repress HRDs and other independent
critical voices for example rule by law as opposed to rule of law.

Lack of digital and physical security mechanisms, at times HRDS from very remote areas
and those new to the field face such a challenge that their Items either in cars or houses and
offices are take away by perpetrators who masquerade as security operatives and on trying to
follow up they are intimidated or even get arrested arbitrary.

Limited or inadequate collaboration networks among HRDs, some of the Civil society
organization having different goals and objectives fail to join the platform in order to share
information and draw up strategies to address human rights issues within networks which
calls for a need for segregation of duties of HRD organizations so that they do not duplicate
each other’s’ work.

Inadequate funding, the challenge of inadequate funding cut across all HRDs at the
national and regional level; and from civil society to state agencies. Underfunding of the
HRD organizations has led to poor information sharing and delayed investigation of cases
which, in turn became an obstacle to justice. Some HRDs are compelled to use their personal
resources to facilitate themselves in order to access justice.

Lack of risk assessment mechanisms for HRDs, most of the civil society organizations
have nothing in place to like risk registers to register every risk incident and take measures to

10
manage them which will be used as precedents to handle any other risk a rising in fact they
have no risk management framework in place.

Limited referral pathways for HRDs, which would otherwise cultivate good working
relationships with partners and other HRD organizations. It is impossible for one HRD to
handle all the human rights issues at hand. Non-Referral of cases that are beyond the capacity
of one HRD organization eventually creates a backlog of non-responded cases.

Delays in responding to attacked HRDS, because of lack of networking and referral

platforms on handling some of the cases by civil society organizations thus HRD cases take
long to be adjudicated upon.

Inaccessible roads and hard to impenetrate, since some of the HRDs work /operate in war
ragged and hard to reach areas hence lack of transport means to reach out to the affected
HRDs.

Lack of adequate protection for HRDs, especially to those who report having been victims
of persecutions, threats and surveillance this entails total defenseless that fosters attacks on
their lives.

Attacks, threats and other forms of harassment,

used as an instrument to thwart and hinder Human rights work in the country. We note that a
large proportion of precautionary measures of protection in recent years have been motivated
by situations of risks, threats and attacks on HRDs.

Arbitrary administrative and financial controls imposed on Human rights

Organizations:
We note that the state maintains legislations, policies or practices that restrict and limit their
work through abusive administrative, tax and fiscal measures this is evidenced by the Finance
Intelligence Authority by alleging that Civil society Organizations are involved in money
laundering hence financing Terrorism attacks in the country.

Office break-ins:
Some offices belonging to HRDs are often broken into and vital information and equipment
such as computers/laptops, projectors, cameras stolen and motor vehicles vandalized. This is
attributed to the scope and focus of their work. These included Environmental Alert, Uganda
Road Sector Support Initiative, Gulu NGO Forum, Women and Child Development

11
Organization, Anti-Corruption Coalition, Uganda, Refugee Law Project, Land and Equity
Movement of Uganda, Lira NGO Forum among others.

10. INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION OF RESPONSES

Figure 1 Figure 2

Common threats to HRDs Perpetrators

100%
80% Others
60% Politicians

40% RDC'S

20% State Agents

Army
0%
on lt s ks ng g g
kin ailin ppin
g police
nti au tt ac i tti c
e S b a r ta
et AS A n H T
a ld ope one 0 50 100
eg ph 150 200
i ll 250 300

12
Figure 1: Interpretation on common threats to HRDs
Over all, there is a prevalence of common threats of illegal detentions and arbitrary arrests,
assaults, attacks, open beating, hacking, trailing and phone tapping and intimidation. The
biggest threats to HRDS in the survey included intimidations, illegal detention and arbitrary
arrests, assaults and others ranked highest 70% and 60% respectively. The frequency of
threats of hacking and open beating was also high
The threat of intimidation remained highly regarded as the common threat to HRDs.
The figure shows that hacking of HRDs is very high to 80% meaning that, they are easily
traced and arrested with no evidence of violation and which is the common practice
according to the mapping. Trailing and phone tapping take 65% to 70% which shows that
HRDs are highly trailed and their information is tapped by security agencies, illegal detention
and Assaults are also high that they are at 65% while Attacks and open beating of HRDs, this
threatens their work life and affects performances

Figure 2: The perpetrators of security threats to HRDs

The figure illustrates that the biggest perpetrators of violations against HRDs in the survey
included security agencies, Government officials, politicians /political organizations,
community and state agencies. Government (RDCs, CAOs) ranked 25% & 26% respectively.

The state agencies (police and army) remained highly regarded as a perpetrator of violations
towards HRDs.

From the figure police take the first position in threatening the HRDs while carrying out their
daily duties from the field, this is followed by the Army and other state agencies /agents,
RDCs and politicians to harass the HRDs to a level between 60 to 100 persons annually,
other perpetrators contribute to significantly these might include religious leaders, private and
other people.

11. CATEGORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS ARE AT MORE RISK

Figure 3:

13
 Category of HRDs are at More Risk
100
80
60
40
20
0
s rs rs t es s rs rs
RD de de ti vis riti trie de de
H n n n n
is t f e f e Ac in
o
du
s fe fe
nal de s de en l M in s de s de
ur e ve
nc ht om ua ht ht
Jo na rig W s ex a cti rig rig
r d r y t
ve n ex
t it en
go La un m
d m n
oo m iro
/G s co e nv
on u
pti no
rr u i ge
Co d
in

From the above figure, Journalist and corruption/good governance HRDs, are at high risk of
being exposed to perpetrators’ actions since they are at the fore front while executing their
duties. At least 90 out of 100 are exposed to arbitrary arrests, beating, torture. Whereas the
land rights, extractive industries and environment rights HRDs are at a lower risk.

A photo vividly showing the rate at which journalist are at more risk as HRDs.

The photograph on the left-hand side explains that on the 12th of December,2020 journalist
attached to Busoga FM was rushed to hospital in critical condition after he was brutally
beaten by police while covering National Platform presidential candidate, Robert
Kyagulanyi.1

1
Daily monitor ,12th December,2020

14
The photograph on right hand side wa taken on the 27th day of December 2020 where a radio
one Journalist and an online Ghetto Tv cameraman is carried to hospital after he allegedly
shot by police in the central district of Masaka while covering National Unity Platform
(NUP) presidential candidate’ campaign.2

During our research. we note that 100٪ of respondents identified that Journalist HRDs are the
most HRDs at risk, the photographs above are examples to that effect.

Evident gaps in the existing protection initiatives

Figure 4: Figure 5:

Intervention that did not work Intervention that worked

300

250 Legal Emergency

Support fund
200 25% 28%

150

100

50 Capacity Psychosocia
Building l Support
0 25% 22%
cy
d

on

rt
es
Ai

po

ca
ti

ti
ea

ra
ga

up

vo
bo
Tr
Le

Ad
lS
l la

ga
co

Le

Emergency fund Psychosocial Support

Capacity Building Legal Support

Figure 4: Show the interventions applied to protect the HRDs but didn’t work appropriately,
there always legal Aid / support to HRDs to access legal services in case a common threat
occurs but it seems that cases are high and not effectively handled as deserved, and their
impact is low as social justice is not delivered on time. Treaties and collaboration with police
and other agencies are highly made but they later violated and the HRDs are tortured finally
so they are not effective as seen from the figure from 50 and above numbers of HRDs inform
police of their activities which are later work against their coordination, again advocacy is

2
Daily Monitor, 27th December,2020

15
seen to be made and the sensitized security agents being aware of human rights and
protection are always violated

Figure 5: The interventions that worked for HRDs whenever faced with threats from the
perpetrators, emergency fund to the staff taking 28% meaning that it contributed highly either
to treatment and relieve from impacts of security operatives, the rest are at 25%, this means
that they are very important if HRDs receive them, will continue to perform their duties
effective since they are compliments that go hand in hand

Figure 6:

Recommended intervention
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
g d re n e y 's
in un ca tio rc ac RD
ui ld yf l a s ou voc H
yb nc ica liz re Ad fo
r
cit g e ed tra an
pa er M en m aw
Em
c
Hu fl
Ca De to
e n
tm
ac
En

13. RECOMMENDED PROTECTION INTERVENTION FOR HRDs

Conducting digital and physical trainings especially for online threats, that exist and on
how well HRDs can protect themselves and their data and information from hackers, thieves

16
hence the need for HRDs to have knowledge when it comes to digital security and data
protection.

Need to train more security team to attend or to respond to emergencies, because where the
HRDS got involved in riots and chaotic situations they should be able to be defended as well
as their gadgets which perpetrators at times end up confiscating, therefore this training is
relevant to HRDS.

Strengthening the existing networks amongst HRDs at local, national and regional levels,
this strategy contributes to exposing or limits violations, while also embedding on human
rights norms in law and society, even in the contexts of fragile areas and conflict hence the
need to scale up, link and give long-term support, including financial support. Through
networking HRDs can learn and benefit from interaction with their peers by strengthening
their local and regional networks.

HRDs should always document and publish their work. This is important as it enhances
information sharing among HRDs as well as allows the general public to understand the
work of HRDs thereby increasing their visibility and relevance.
Threat analysis mechanism

There is a need to put in a place threat analysis mechanism to a sustain the gravity and
magnitude of the attacks, registers to record down situations happened and what was the
appropriate solution to the cause this will remind them to use them as a solution or design
strategy in the same line for their protection.

Need to create a data base for HRDs organization that can offer temporary safety measures as
the permanent remedies are being identified.

Capacity building
Capacity building of HRDs should be given apriority for it aims at improving the safety and
security of individual HRDs and their Organizations. The increasing capacity of HRDs helps
to detect, mitigate and respond appropriately to issues that undermine the safety and work of
HRDs. Capacity building further helps to increase personal and collective capacity of self-
care with focus on the wellbeing of HRDS.
Legal protection of HRDs
Need to strengthen the existing legal protection of HRDs through enacting the HRD law,
strengthen the existing law and create awareness including technical guidance and advice to

17
Civil society actors regarding the development and implementation of the HRD law and
policies which would protect them from arbitrary threats and attacks.
Training of more Paralegals
Training more paralegals up country to curb the increasing number of attacks on HRDs, if
these are trained then HRDS in up country areas or remote areas will easily have access to
support and protection against perpetrators.
Wellbeing and stress management
Need to strengthen the wellbeing and stress management of HRDs, this included leave, self-
collective measures and retreats. This requires some time investment for HRDs which will
be rewarding and makes one more resilient and more effective at work. This will make them
rejuvenated and motivated to increase their job performance hence recommended for
implementation. “A less stressed HRD is undoubtedly a more effective HRD”.
Need to always have an updated security plan to mitigate risks that HRDs are likely to
interface. In HRD organizations where HRDs are at risk, an organization security plan
update and development, helps to protect the workers and also allow them to do their work
more effectively for instance if an organization acknowledges and plans for dealing with the
risks the staff [ or member will feel more supported and have increased allegiance to the
organization and its important work. It is also important to urge members in HRD
organizations to have individual or personal security plans though each member may have
unique attributes such as gender, sex orientation and age,

Risk Analysis formula

The need to develop and have in place a risk analysis formula, a tool that can be used as the
next step in building up the security plan and also assists one to think through the risks an
HRD is likely to interface with so that less time is spent considering the risks that are unlikely
to arise or that doesn’t cause more harm.
The risk Formula= Threats × vulnerabilities
Capacities
Referral pathways
Need to create referral pathways, there is a need for HRDs to cultivate good working
relationships with partners refer human rights issues to them that is No HRD can handle all
human rights issues alone thus the need for partnerships in order to be able to refer cases that
are beyond the capacity of one HRD organization to handle.

18
Sample Question for mapping

i. Name of the organization.

ii. Which regions do you cover in your work?
iii. Which category of HRDs are more at risk?
iv. What are the existing protection interventions for HRDs at
v. What are the evident gaps in the existing protection initiatives in terms of:-
vi. Who are the people/actors (perpetrators) behind the threats as listed above? 
vii. What are the common security threats faced by human rights defenders within your
working environment? 
viii. Kindly suggest any recommendations for the effective protection of human rights
defenders in your country
ix. In your opinion, which of the protection interventions is treated as a priority
(including in terms of donor funding)?
x. In your opinion, which of the listed protection interventions has worked for HRDs?

19