A REVIEW OF THE SALIENT PROVISIONS PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT

ACT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE

BY
NAMAGANDA HANIFAH

RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POST

GRADUATE LEGAL STUDIES AND LEGAL AID IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DIPLOMA IN LEGAL PRACTICE
OF THE LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

APRIL 2022

i
Contents
DECLARATION.............................................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATION..........................................................................................................iii
DEDICATION...............................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGWEMENT............................................................................................v
CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................x
1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................x
Background of the study..............................................................................................xi
1.2 Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................xii
1.3 General Objective.................................................................................................xiii
1.3.1 Specific objectives.............................................................................................xiii
1.3.2 Research Questions..........................................................................................xiii
1.3.3 Significance of the Study...................................................................................xiii
1.3.4 Research Methodology.....................................................................................xiii
1.3.5 Scope of the Study............................................................................................xiv
1.4 Time scope...........................................................................................................xiv
1.4.1 Geographical Scope..........................................................................................xiv
1.4.2 Literature Review..............................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................xvi
2.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER THREE......................................................................................................xx
3.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................xx
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................xxiii
4.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................xxiii
CHAPTER FIVE........................................................................................................xxv
5.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................xxv
5.2 FINDINGS...........................................................................................................xxv
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................xxvi
5.4 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................xxvii
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................xxviii
STAUTES/ LEGISLATION......................................................................................xxviii
JOURNALS.............................................................................................................xxviii

ii
DECLARATION
I, NAMAGANDA HANIFAH do hereby declare that this work, save for sources here
in acknowledged, is my own and the same has never been presented anywhere for
any examination or award

Signature…………………………………. Date………………………………………
NAMAGANDA HANIFAH

iii
CERTIFICATION
I……………………………….certify that I have supervised and read this study and
that in my opinion , it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation
and is fully adequate in scope as a dissertation in the partial fulfilment for the Award
of a Diploma in Legal Practice

Signature…………………………. Date……………………………………………
……………………………………………………………

iv
DEDICATION
To my father, brothers and my grandfather for they have been the source of
inspiration of my studies and for their continued support and motivation in my
education

v
ACKNOWLEDGWEMENT
I thank the Almighty Allah (S.A.W) for the Strength and Guidance that propelled me
to go to the Bar Course and for the Continued Wisdom
With great Respect, i would like to thank my professional advisors who have for the
last 9 months made my dreams come true with incredible devotion
I express my special thanks to senior Counsel ………………………………..for the
encouragement and guidance to share his priceless experience and particularly the
kindness that I cannot take for Granted

vi
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
Under national, regional and international laws, Uganda is obligated to respect the
right to freedom of speech, expression and assembly of all persons 1. Article 292,
provides for freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble and to
demonstrate with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition. Pursuant to this,
there was the enactment of the Legislation to regulate Public Gatherings which is the
Public order Management Act, 2013 where the underlying principle of managing
public order is to regulate the exercise of freedom to assemble and to demonstrate
together peacefully and unarmed and to petition in accordance with Articles 29 of the
constitution. The POMA was enacted to provide (a) a regulatory framework for public
assemblies in Uganda and (b) for the duties and responsibilities of the police,
organisers and participants in public assemblies. In addition to the above it was also
intended to keep peace, order, and tranquillity in the country, especially in urban
areas, to ensure that public assemblies do not disrupt businesses, traders or
commerce. In the same vein the Constitution establishes the Uganda Police force
under Article 2113 and Grants it the duty to primarily, keep law and order in Uganda,
this duty is inclusive but not limited to managing public gatherings and ensuring that
they are conducted in a peaceful way. The international human rights instruments
also provide for the right to peaceful assembly, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights4 in its preamble provides that Realizing that the individual,
having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs,
is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the
rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Background of the study

In the Pre-independence history of Uganda, it is sufficing to note that between 1894
and 1962 Uganda was ruled by the United Kingdom as a British Protectorate.
Throughout that period the protection and promotion of human rights was mainly
regulated by the colonial Government.5

In the period between 1962 and 1966 of Obote’s regime may be described as period
of drama in the constitution development of Uganda as it was a transitional period in
which the independence constitution went on trial and it was found to be unworkable
thus it watered the bill of rights that has been originally conceptualized in the
previous constitution. Further still, Obotes rule was so tensional and oppressive in
nature that the rights of people were violated. 6

1
Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edition, published by the OSCE Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) accessible at www.osce.org/odihr
2
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995
3
The Constitution of the Republic Of Uganda
4
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-
rights
5
https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/uganda/Uganweb-06.htm

vii
In 1971, Iddi Amin took over power against Obote and he exhibited a military rule
against Ugandans. He created security organisations which reported directly to him
including the Public Safety Unit and State Research Bureau and all working hand in
hand with the military police. It is worth noting that over a thousand Ugandans lost
their lives during this period as there was no respect of human rights.

In 1980, Obote resumed power after Amin s fall and this period was also radicle in
nature which led to abolition of all opposition political parties thus hindering the
freedom expression and association hence violation of human rights.

In 1986 the NRM came up with ten-point programme of which one of its aims was
establishment of democracy, defence of human and democratic rights which are all
provided for under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Before the
enactment of the POMA, the right to public assembly was not restricted where
different political rallies where organized any time.

However this right has been violated by the opposition parties thus leading to the
enactment of the Public Order Management Act 2013 to regulate public meetings,
duties and the responsibilities of the police, organisers and participants in relation to
public meetings. In the case of Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney general, it was held
that section 32 of the police act was unconstitutional and that it gives police powers
to regulate assemblies and processions. Also, in the case of Human right network &
four others v Attorney general. It was held that section 8 of POMA was
unconstitutional and null and void as it places rather burden some restrictions on an
individual’s ability to exercise rights to hold public gatherings.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Article 29 of the Constitution of The Republic of Uganda provides for Protection of
freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association.
Furthermore Article 29(1) provides that every person shall have the right to (a)
freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and
other media; However this right is not absolute as it is violated by the law enforcing
agencies especially the police when regulating public gatherings and this in
contravention with Article 43(1) Article is about General limitation on fundamental
and other human rights and freedoms. (1) In the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms prescribed in this Chapter, no person shall prejudice the fundamental or
other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.

The primary laws in Uganda that regulate public gatherings are the Constitution of
Uganda and the Public Order management Act, 2013 and the provisions of the latter
have increasingly been seen as a way of unfairly suppressing in public gatherings
especially those of the opposition and the right of assembly in Uganda, especially in
6
See generally, Holger Bernt Hansen and Michael Twaddle (eds.), Religion and Politics in East Africa: The Period
since Independence (London: James Currey, 1995). Some academics have argued that political parties
exacerbated these ethnic and religious divides. See Dan M. Mudoola, Religion, Ethnicity and Politics in Uganda
(Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 1996).

viii
Kampala. Many times, the actions of the police which have been premised upon
provisions of the POMA. This has seen opposition gatherings being grounded as
unlawful for failure to follow procedure a case in a point is In January, police arrested
Wine and fired teargas at his supporters when he tried to hold a rally to mark his
2021 presidential bid. Since he became a legislator in 2017, Wine has rattled
Ugandan authorities, who see him as a threat to President Museveni has been in
power since 19867 . In addition to the above giving the UPDF notice of unintended
assembly and subsequently leading to the arrest and detention of opposition
politicians, dispersing such gatherings amongst others. Such steps taken by the
UPDF have made the latter to be tagged as an instrument used by the state to
suppress the opposition in Uganda.

1.3 General Objective

The General objective is to review the salient provisions of the public order
management act and its implications on the right to associate.

1.3.1 Specific objectives

1. To review the salient provisions of the POMA and there implications on the
right of assembly

2. To identify the Reasons for the violation of the Right to Assembly

3. To suggest Possible recommendations

1.3.2 Research Questions

1. What are the salient provisions of the POMA and its implications on the right
of assembly?

2. What are the reasons for the violation of the Right to Assembly?

3. What are the possible recommendations?

1.3.3 Significance of the Study

The information put forward by this research paper is hoped to provoke the
government and civil society organizations and the community to condemn
practices of Uganda police in enforcing the public Order management and it negative
implications towards providing the Constitutional Rights of the people.

The study is also expected to provide a foundation for future research to other
scholars who would wish to carry out research in the same field. It will also help in
closing the existing knowledge gaps on freedom of assembly.

1.3.4 Research Methodology

Am going to rely on online desk research method since there is an incredible
amount of data available online on the internet. It’s important to my research since
7
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/mar/28/ugandas-crackdown-on-public-gatherings-
ruled-unconstitutional

ix
there are billions of pages available on internet. There could be two approaches for
digging out the relevant information from internet, one is directly browsing the
specific information and secondly, using the various search engines like
www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, www.infoseek.go.com, www.altavista.com etc.,
for modulated searching. I will also use secondary data which information available
from other sources that have already been gathered. This is data collected by
someone other than the user and that its common sources are censuses, information
collected by movement departments, organisation records, and data that was
originally collected for other research purposes.

1.3.5 Scope of the Study

The study will focus at a review of the salient provisions public order management
act and its implications on the right to associate

1.4 Time scope

This study is limited to the period between 2013 & 2021, the same covering the five-
year period in which two general elections were conducted in Uganda and also the
one in which Uganda witnessed the enactment of the key Public Order Management
Legislation.

1.4.1 Geographical Scope

This study is cantered in Kampala Capital city, as it is where most public gatherings
occur and the headquarters of the Uganda police force are located, with the majority
of the latest equipment for managing public assemblies.

1.4.2 Literature Review

To review the salient provisions of the POMA and there implications on the
right of assembly

According to the first thematic report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to
freedom of assembly and association, an assembly is an intentional and temporary
gathering in a private or public space for a specific purpose. 8 The right to freedom of
peaceful assembly is among the most important human rights. It allows people to
‘gather publicly or privately and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend
common interests.’ 9 The freedom of assembly includes the right to participate in
peaceful assemblies, meetings, protests, strikes, sit-ins, demonstrations and other
temporary gatherings for a specific purpose.

Although much has been written about the many freedoms in different jurisdictions,
there is paucity of literature on the law relating to the freedom of assembly. Most of
the available research literature looks at the problem of practicing and enforcing the

8
Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of
association
9
Jacob Zenn, Freedom of Assembly Procedures of Permission and Notification

x
freedom. A number of scholars have considered the subject of the freedom of
assembly. 10

According to Dicey the right to assemble is of great relevance in any democratic

society and the outcomes can be expressed accordingly reflecting on real life
practices and court directives on liberty of a person and liberty of speech. 11 In
respect to Dicey’s assertion as presented by Oji 12 the right to freedom of assembly is
simply a sum of the right of movement and speech, but according to Oji, this does
not grant the value of freedom laid down in the 19th century.

To identify the Reasons for the violation of the Right to Assembly

Furthermore, according to R. M. Hope, Q.C. in her paper entitled, The Right of

Peaceful Assembly observes that generally expressed, few people would deny that a
democratic society must involve freedom of speech, and a freedom to assemble to
express and impart opinions, and where relevant to criticize the government. 13
Whereas much literature has been written about the recently passed law governing
public gathering, the public order management act 2013 and the modes employed
the Uganda police force in implementing this law, the criticism labeled against them
by some authors and commentators has also been premised on the human rights
perspective which have hitherto been advanced by them.

To suggest possible recommendations

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guidelines on the freedom of
assembly in Africa spells out 10 key principles that would guarantee a human rights-
based approach in safeguarding the right to assembly. First is the presumption in
favour
of rights. In the event that conflicts arise in the exercise of one’s right to assembly,
the state has to act in a manner that ensures that the right to assembly is respected,
protected and exercised. Cases may appear when certain conditions are not met by
the
organisers of such assemblies. This principle calls upon the state to ensure that
people
are able to exercise their right to assembly. For example, persons who wish to
exercise
their right to assembly may not have fulfilled all the requirements under the law for
holding of assemblies. The principle of presumption in favour of rights compels the
state to do all in its means and capacity to ensure that the people are able to

10
Kasule Philip, the Right to freedom of Assembly of Opposition Political parties.
11
 Dicey, A. V. (1915), “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution” Liberty Classics 8th
edition (Macmillan). Also available online at: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm [Visited
3 September 2012].
12
Ibid.
13
Hope, R. M. Q.C, “The Right of Peaceful Assembly” at page 2.

xi
exercise
their right to assemble.14

Conclusively, the history of Uganda, from the onset of colonialism, has been
characterised by violation abuse of this right to personal liberty 15 this was
experienced by citizens under different laws like the orders in council, the First
National Constitution, the newest and recent 1995 constitution. This has left a
question on whether the right was being promoted, enforced and protected, as all
rights should be.

14
Japhet Biegon | Abdullahi Boru | Delly Mawazo, Domestic Adherence to Continental and International Norms
in the Practice of Policing Assemblies in Africa, http://apcof.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/freedom-of-
assembly-in- africa-.pdf
15
0\oka Onyango; Judicial Power and Constitutionalism in Uganda, 1993 pg 42

xii
 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 TO REVIEW THE SALIENT PROVISIONS OF THE POMA AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS ON THE RIGHT
OF ASSEMBLY

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Freedom of assembly has always been one of the most contentious rights, Uganda
is experiencing clear patterns of repression against peaceful assembly, association
and expression as well as constrained work of activists and journalists. 16

The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association is both a human right
itself and an enabler of citizens’ political participation in democratic
governance.

This right is also key to the achievement of economic, social and cultural rights. The
right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association is enshrined in the main
universal legal instruments for the protection of civil and political rights, namely, in
Article 2017 and Articles 21 and 22 (respectively) 18 .At the regional level, freedom of
expression is protected under the African Charter for Human and Peoples’ Rights
(ACHPR) – also known as the African Charter.

At the national level, the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article
2919. It provides that every person has a right to:

(I)  Freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and
other media;

(ii)   Freedom of thought, conscience and belief, which shall include academic

freedom in institutions of learning;

(iii)   Freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and
unarmed and to petition; and

(iv) Freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join
associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic
organizations.

It’s against this background that I will review the salient provisions of the POMA and
their implications on the right of assembly and how the poma has impacted on civic
space for citizen’s participation in their governance.

The POMA was enacted in 2013 to provide (a) a regulatory framework for public
assemblies in Uganda and (b) for the duties and responsibilities of the police,
organisers and participants in public assemblies. It was intended to keep peace,
16
https://uganda.actionaid.org/publications/2020/summary-findings-review-laws-affecting-freedom-assembly-
association( accessed on 15/02/2022 at 11:52)
17
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR)
18
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
19
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995(As amended )

xiii
order, and tranquillity in the country, especially in urban areas, to ensure that public
assemblies do not disrupt businesses, traders or commerce 20. Sections 3, 5, 6 and 8
of The Public Order Management Act contradict articles 29, 43, 212, 214 of the
Constitution.

 Section 3 of the 21 provides for powers of the IGP to regulate public meetings ,it
provides that the inspector General of police or an authorised officer shall have the
power to regulate the conduct of all public meetings in accordance with the law.
Which is very often misconstrued to include authority to allow or deny public
meetings. This provision is susceptible to abuse and contradicts articles 29, 43 and
212 of the Constitution namely; article 29 (I) (d) on freedom to assemble and
demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; article 43
on general limitations on fundamental and other human rights and freedoms; and
the functions of police. The Interpretation of this section should be sought from
constitutional court this was articulated in the case of Major General David
22
Tinyefuza vs Attorney General, it was held that this right is derogated by article
43(1) to the extent that in the enjoyment of that freedom, no person shall prejudice
the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest
. This calls for the need to sensitize the people on the differences between regulation
and prohibition and functions of police as enshrined in article 212 of the Constitution.

In addition to the above The Court noted that Section 32 of the Police Act required
Ugandans to seek permission from the IGP before exercising the right to
demonstrate and assemble, which contradicts Article 29 of the Constitution. The
POMA further contradicts 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.

Section 523 provides for Notice of public meetings; the work of police during public
meetings should be limited to providing security (keeping law and order). This
provision is the re- enactment of the repealed Section 32 of the Police Act in the
case of Muwanga Kivumbi v Attorney General24 , This Provision also contradicts
article 29 (I) (d) on freedom to assemble and demonstrate together with others
peacefully and unarmed and to petition; article 43 on general limitations on
fundamental and other human rights and freedoms; and article 212 on functions of
police; article 214 on the role of parliament in regulating the police force; and article
2125 which provides for a right to peaceful assembly. The provision should be
amended to limit the power of police to providing security for public meetings

20
https://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights/constitutional-court-in-uganda-declares-section-8-of-the-public-
order-management-act-unconstitutional/
21
Public order management Act , 2013
22
No. 1 of 1997 (SCU) (unreported)
23
Supra
24
(Constitutional Petition 9 of 2005) [2008] UGCC 34 (27 May 2008);
25
The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

xiv
Section 626 gives police powers to authorize or deny public gatherings which is
unconstitutional. This is a re – enactment of the repealed section 32 of the Police Act
in Muwanga Kivumbi case. It contradicts article 21 of the ICCPR on the right to
peaceful assembly. Police has no powers to prohibit peaceful assemblies or public
meetings

The notification for spontaneous public meetings procedure under the POMA, Is not
clear enough or in the alternative it’s subject to abuse. Section 7(1) of the POMA 27,
establishes the aspect of notification within seven days before holding rallies, I would
hold that this is agreeable for other formal assemblies, for example those
processions in commemoration of public holidays like children’s days, women’s days
among others but incompatible with political protests. The reasoning behind this
assertion is that most political gatherings sometimes are spontaneous and are
dictated by times and events at the heat of the moment, therefore to outlaw such in
this procedure is to curtail political expression which is one of the primary rights
guaranteed by the constitution of Uganda. 28

 Section 8 (1) provides for Powers of authorized officer, Police does not have the
powers to stop or prevent public gatherings.  Articles 29(1) (d) on freedom to
assemble and demonstrate together with others peacefully and Article 21 of the
ICCCPR. In a recent decision in the case of HURINET & 5 Ors vs AG, the
Constitutional Court declared Section 8 of POMA unconstitutional, but AG has since
appealed the decision

The POMA29 establishes restricted areas that must not be approached without
permission from the authorized officer. As per the Third Schedule, the restricted
areas include Parliament, state house and lodges, International airports and Courts
of Judicature. I would hold that these are key installations in any one state, however
for a state to restrict access to this on unfounded grounds may be unreasonable
since power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in
accordance with the constitution 30. The people chose their representatives to
parliament, if the people are not satisfied with their services then they should bring a
protest to the door steps of Parliament to express their dissatisfaction, remember this
is presumed to be peaceful. The procedures put in place to deal with this are not in
favour of holding a spontaneous protest if for example a law is to be passed hurriedly
by the Parliament like it has become a norm now.
26
The Public Order Management Act
27
is to the effect that an organizer shall give notice in writing signed by the organizer or his or her agent to the
Inspector General of police of the intention to hold a public meeting, at least seven days but not more than 15
days before the proposed date of the public meeting. Subsection 2 sets out what should be included in the
notice to including names, physical and postal address of the organizer and contacts, the proposed time of the
meeting, which shall be within 6:00a.m and 6:00pm, the site of the meeting , number of people expected,
purpose of the meeting and other relevant information. This must be accompanied by a letter from the
proprietor of the proposed venue.
28
SSRN-id3425140.pdf
29
Section 16
30
Constitution of Uganda 1995, Article 1

xv
The POMA too demands for a letter of authorization from the owner of the venue of
the proposed venue, this has implications, on the face of it; it seeks to intimidate the
owners of venues not to cooperate with the possible protesters. There are some
examples where the opposition has booked into places in the past only to be
bounced as a result of the coercion from the state and its agents, therefore if this has
been happening in the past without a law to that effect how about now if it is
entrenched in the law. The owners of these venues are usually business men who
are interested in making a living from their investment hence may not be interested
in brushing the state the wrong way by authorizing protests in their premises, this is
a loophole that must be addressed.31

However, though various provisions of the Public Order management Act have had a
Negative implication on the right to associate, the freedom of expression is a great
asset to any society so for the state to effectively legislate against it is unacceptable.
By expressly providing that, any meeting at ‘which the principles, policy, actions
or failure of any government, political party or political organisation is
registered under any law, are discussed’ the state has in effect dealt away with
the right to expression, the members of the public are therefore likely to be sceptical
of discussing politics which is not healthy at all, because ‘where a man cannot call
his tongue his own, he can scarcely call anything his own’ 32 which is a grave
violation.

31
The Public Order Management Act: The Demise of Freedom of Assembly in Uganda by Emmanuel Elau
32
Promoting Freedom of Expression and an Independent Media: Challenges and Opportunities in the Modern
World, Issue Paper for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark. Published by Global Partners and Associates

xvi
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 TO IDENTIFY THE REASONS FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

ASSEMBLY

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The right to associate is not absolute. The police have a wide range of powers to
control and restrict the actions of protestors. These powers should not be exercised
by the police in an unaccountable and discriminatory manner.

According to Article 2933, it provides that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
association with others. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of this right
rather than those which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of
national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or
morals, or the protection of rights and freedoms.

However, this is not always the case as the freedom to associate sometimes gets
limited through laws that may undermine the enjoyment of this right, despite
constitutional guarantees. In Uganda there are several laws that limit the enjoyment
of this freedom such as the NGO Act34. However in Charles Onyango Obbo and
Anor v Attorney General 35 it was stated that freedom of expression is of great
significance to democracy. It is the bedrock of democratic governance. Meaningful
participation of the governed in their governance, which is the hallmark of
democracy, is only assured through optimal exercise of the freedom of expression
below are some incidences where the law limits the enjoyment of this Freedom. 36

The law gives powers to the minister to declare a society unlawful or any person who
becomes a member of such a society commits a crime, critically the broad nature of
intimidation and incitement here gives a lot of room for abuse by the government
especially where groups of people associate.

The Public Order Management Law 37, passed in 2013, contains unjustifiable
restrictions on the right to assemble peacefully. For example, the legislation grants
the police discretionary powers to prohibit public meetings if they are not deemed to
be in the ‘public interest’. Under that mandate, the police have disrupted many public
assemblies organised by opposition political parties and student movements,
arresting the organisers in the process.38

33
the ICCPR
34
2015
35
(Constitutional Appeal 2 of 2002) [2004] UGSC 81 (10 February 2004);
36
J. Morsink ‘Inherent Human Rights, Philosophical Roots of the Universal Declaration’
37
POMA
38
Peaceful Assembly in Uganda - CIVICUS - Tracking conditions for citizen action ( accessed on 28th/Feb/2021)

xvii
Section 939 provides for duties of the police, Subsection provides that (1) the police
shall be responsible for preserving law and order before, during and after a public
meeting. Subsection (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the police shall—(a)
provide security for both the participants and other members of the public likely to be
affected by the public meeting;(b) ensure fairness and equal treatment of all parties
by giving consistent responses to organisers of public meetings, or their agents in
similar circumstances; however the Police has continued abuse these powers
through refusing people to assemble and demonstrate peacefully 40

Section 541 provides for Notice of public meeting, Subsection (1) provides that An
organizer shall give notice in writing signed by the organiser or his or her agent to
the authorised officer of the intention to hold a public meeting, at least three days but
not more than fifteen days before the proposed date of the public meeting , however
much the police and other responsible Authorities are informed they still storm such
assemblies and claim their was poor or no communication between the police and
organizers , this has escalated the violation of the right to assembly 42

Section 1043provides for Responsibilities of organizers and participants, Subsection 2

provides that (2) A person who participates in a public meeting shall act in a manner
that ensures that obstruction of traffic, confusion or disorder is avoided, However the
adversarial approach to planning and management of demonstrations by the police
and organizers and the threat to safety of demonstrators, security of property, as well
as, law and order during demonstrations has pushed the police to disperse
assemblies however much there has been compliance with the law. 44

The constitutionality of Section 32 (2) was challenged in the case Muwanga Kivumbi
vs the Attorney General45 decided by the Constitutional Court in May 2008. In this
case the Constitutional Court unanimously declared the sub-section unconstitutional
on the basis that it amounts to granting ‘prohibitive’ rather than ‘regulatory’ powers to
the police and hence was an unjustifiable restriction to the exercise of the freedom of
assembly and peaceful demonstration guaranteed under Article 29 46. However, the
lack of consensus on the interpretation and limitation of the right to assemble and
demonstrate; mistrust between the police and organizers of demonstrations –

39
The Public Order Management Act, 2013
40
Uganda Human Rights Commission (2009) “Guidelines on Public Demonstration in Uganda”, Preface, pp 5-6
41
Public Order Management Act , 2013
42
Uganda Human Rights Commission (2009) “Guidelines on Public Demonstration in Uganda”, Preface, pp 11-
19
43
Supra
44
See Uganda Human Rights Commission (2009) “Guidelines on Public Demonstration in Uganda”, p 9.
45
Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2005, in the Constitutional Court of Uganda (Unreported).
46
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995

xviii
inhibiting cooperation in the organization and management of demonstrations has
increased the violation of the Right to Associate. 47

The Electoral Commission stated in September that political rallies are currently
unlawful because the campaign had not officially started in accordance with the
Presidential Elections Act. The Commission argued that “some aspirants are turning
consultative meetings into open campaigns and rallies contrary to the law.” However,
Museveni routinely speaks and attends public events and communicates with voters
about his political intentions. As one journalist noted, “There is selective application
of POMA. When it is [the ruling party] nobody bothers to notify police.” 48

47
Amnesty International interview with the management of a private television media house, 1 September
2011. The management did not wish to be named for fear of reprisals.
48
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/18/uganda-end-police-obstruction-gatherings

xix
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 TO SUGGEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION
As a basic and fundamental right, freedom of assembly should be enjoyed without
regulation in so far as is possible. Anything not expressly forbidden in law should,
therefore, be presumed to be permissible, and those wishing to assemble should not
be required to obtain permission to do so. In contrast, the underlying rationale for a
permission requirement is much more tenuous because it places full power with the
state. Where there is a ‘permission requirement,’ the authorities give approval for
using public space for an assembly, which contravenes the essence of the nature of
freedom for peaceful assembly.

Thus the researcher will look at possible recommendations to the above.

There is urgent need for the Minister to present regulations which would specifically
guide and provide for mechanisms through which the police and political party
leaders can engage for purposes of facilitating the right to assembly. While the police
has all avenues to engage the organisers of public meetings, the lack of clearly
defined mechanisms and of goodwill undermines this engagement. 49

There is need to amend the law to allow space and freedom to political parties to
conduct their activities. Discussing matters of public interest is the essence of
political party work and subjecting this to the consent of the police undermines the
very essence of multiparty politics. The broad definitions are also subject to abuse. 50

There is need to amend the law, to compel the police to respond to notices, and to
provide for explicit interpretations in the event that the police does not respond to the
notices for public meetings within the stipulated time frame. Under the current law,
POMA demands that the political parties provide consent of the proprietor of the
public premises when giving notice of public meeting. In many cases, the proprietors
charge for these venues and always demand full payment before the consent can be
given.51

There is need for further amendment to the law to specifically define the grounds
upon which a public meeting can be prevented or stopped by the police. Under the
current law, the police may prevent or stop a public meeting if the premises are
49
challenges and Implications for Freedom of Assembly in Uganda: A Case of Public Meetings Organised by
Political Parties (2013 - 2019)
50
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/03/uganda-constitutional-court-nullifies-law-used-to-
prohibit-protests
51
Challenges and Implications for Freedom of Assembly in Uganda: A Case of Public Meetings Organised by
Political Parties (2013 - 2019)

xx
already booked for another public meeting or if the venue is considered not suitable
for crowd and traffic control. The law does not define what is suitable for crowd and
traffic control. This leaves a lot of discretion to the police and much of this discretion
has been abused to arbitrarily restrict the rights of political parties to exercise their
freedom of assembly.52

The Ugandan Police Force should draw up guidelines on the use of teargas, Human
Rights Watch said. The guidelines should be unambiguous that teargas may not be
used simply because police deem a gathering unlawful, including when police
believe organizers have failed to comply with the Public Order Management Act’s
requirements regarding police notification or permission. 53

Detailed awareness about the details of the law and the principles of policing public
meetings is needed both among the political leaders and the police. While the law
instructs the police, in stopping or preventing public meeting, to take account of the
right of individuals to assemble, this has not always been the case. The police have
taken their decisions to stop public meetings to be final and all their subsequent
actions have been taken on the basis of these decisions. Public meetings have been
blocked in total disregard of the guiding principles under POMA and the right to
assemble under the constitution.54

There is need for further consultative processes on policing public meetings in

Uganda POMA issues should not be reserved for the top leadership of the police and
regarded as security matters public discussion of which is carefully guarded. 55

52
Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and
of association
53
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/18/uganda-end-police-obstruction-gatherings
54
Jacob Zenn, Freedom of Assembly Procedures of Permission and Notification
55
Japhet Biegon | Abdullahi Boru | Delly Mawazo, Domestic Adherence to Continental and International
Norms in the Practice of Policing Assemblies in Africa,
http://apcof.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/freedom-of-assembly-inafrica-.pdf

xxi
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter looks at findings and recommendations of the study that would be
relevant to different stakeholders

5.2 FINDINGS
The researcher finds that the implementation of POMA has faced both ideological
problems and lack of facilitating frameworks and mechanisms to guide the
engagement of the police and the different parties. On the part of the police, the
directives of the president on public assemblies clearly show the implied
responsibility to guide how the right to assembly is to be exercised in Uganda.

The researcher finds the implied responsibility of the police is not consistent with the
international norms and standards. As a result, the police has no clear objective
criterion that demonstrates goodwill and transparency when making decisions on
public meetings organised by political parties and other individuals

The researcher finds that the police has also ignored its duties and obligations as
provided for under POMA. The police has also abused its powers under section 8, by
blocking and preventing public meetings that do not qualify to be stooped under
section 8. This further demonstrates that considerations for public meetings to be
stopped are made on the basis of factors other than those provided for under POMA

The researcher finds that there is lack of consensus on the need for and manner of
policing public meetings to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights are
safeguarded and public order is maintained. The current law and context have
prioritised public order and have tended to be more prohibitive than facilitative.
Under these circumstances, public debate has not advanced the critical challenges
but has tended to address the outcomes and confrontations. Uganda is also going
through a transition process that is seeing greater demands for rights and political
space.

The researcher finds that various demands are being pursued under a regime that
seeks to guide both the pace and scope of the transition. Much of the debate and
decisions on public meetings are taking place within a context of security which
obscures and further complicates oversight on the role of the police in facilitating the
right to assemble.

The researcher finds that many political party leaders and other individuals do not
understand the details of POMA. While many have accused the police of
misinterpreting the law, a big number have also misinterpreted the law or lack

xxii
awareness of the details of the law. Section (4), sub-section (2) 56 that exempts
meetings of organs of political parties has been the most misunderstand section.
Under this section, the only meetings exempted are those of the specific organs of
the party, that are held in accordance with the provisions of the party constitution and
to discuss exclusively internal matters of the political party.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the above findings, the researcher came up with recommendations that
could help on mitigating the challenges to associate.

There is need for detailed awareness about the details of the law and the principles
of policing public meetings is needed both among the political leaders and the police.
While the law instructs the police, in stopping or preventing public meeting, to take
account of the right of individuals to assemble.

There is need for further amendment to the law to specifically define the grounds
upon which a public meeting can be prevented or stopped by the police. Under the
current law, the police may prevent or stop a public meeting if the premises are
already booked for another public meeting or if the venue is considered not suitable
for crowd and traffic control

The researcher recommends that there is need for consensus on the manner in
which public gatherings or assemblies are managed and manner of policing public
meetings to ensure that the constitutionally protected rights are safeguarded and
public order is maintained.

The researcher recommends that there is need to amend the law, to compel the
police to respond to notices, and to provide for explicit interpretations in the event
that the police does not respond to the notices for public meetings within the
stipulated time frame

5.4 CONCLUSIONS
This year, 2022, marks nine years since the enactment of POMA. It is important that
a study was undertaken on the implementation of POMA to establish whether the
law is indeed facilitating the realisation and exercise of the right to assemble or
whether it has turned out to be a law that is being used to arbitrarily deny a
constitutionally enshrined right. Based on experience with the implementation of
POMA, the study will inform debate on the necessary legal and political reforms to
enhance the protection and exercise of the right to freedom of assembly.
Furthermore, in conclusion, the study is expected to contribute to improving the
working relations between the police and organisers of public meetings.

56
Public Order management Act

xxiii
BIBLIOGRAPHY

STAUTES/ LEGISLATION
1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda
2. The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center, Right to
Peaceful Assembly 2014
3. The Police Act
4. The Public Order Management Act, 2013
5. The Regulations of Gatherings Act, South Africa
6. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights

JOURNALS
1. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
2. Amnesty International Good Practice for Law Enforcement Officials Policing
Demonstrations
3. Amnesty International, Policing Public Assemblies, 2011
4. Chapter Four, what you need to know about your expression and assembly
freedoms
5. Clifford Stott, Martin Scothern and Hugo Gorringe, Advances in Liaison Based
Public
6. Order Policing in England: Human Rights and Negotiating the Management of
Protest?
7. Policing Advance Access published March 14, 2013
8. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Policing of Public Assemblies in
Tanzania, 2012
9. International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law, Comments on the “Public Order
Management Bill, 2009”, 2011
10. Jacob Zenn, Freedom of Assembly procedures of Permission and Notification

xxiv
xxv