Somewhere in the middle of his speech before a journalism awards ceremony in Kampala recently, President Museveni had an important question to ask. “So,” he said, “is there press freedom in Uganda?”

Journalists who covered the ceremony – the 2010 CNN Multichoice African Journalist of the Year Awards, perhaps the most prestigious event of its kind on the continent, on May 29 – said a few murmurs were heard in the audience. As it turned out, however, the President said “yes” to his own question. Then, according to a transcript of his speech, he added: “So much that journalists have the luxury to abuse a bigger percentage of it.”

Mr. Museveni’s musings were intended, in the spirit of the ceremony, to inspire African journalism towards greater heights, but they also pointed to the profession’s dilemma at a time when the government is seriously considering amending the Press and Journalist Act to include provisions that would leave the independent media weaker, not stronger. His comments also followed a pattern of public comments in which the Ugandan leader alternates between feeling sorry for journalists – in March he asked a group of reporters why they seemed miserable, speculating that they do not earn enough – and condemning them for alleged bias or incompetence. However he speaks, jokingly or not, Mr. Museveni does not usually speak gloriously of journalists.

In his speech at the awards ceremony, the President attempted to justify the proposed amendments, saying Ugandan journalists had not reached the professionalism needed to be left to their own devices. “Needless to say, the journalists’ remonstration with the government comes from the thinking that they are better placed to manage themselves while using press freedoms,” he said. “And, we are saying, the state is still an interested party in how people use freedoms because we have the dual mandate of managing the affairs of this country and the legitimacy to engage other stakeholders in the development processes of our country.” In other words, according to Mr. Museveni, government control can help Ugandan journalists do a better job.

The proposed amendments to the Press and Journalist Act, contained in a draft Bill currently being discussed by the government, have been condemned by professional journalists at home and abroad, with a number of watchdog organisations saying the proposals would imperil the independent media in Uganda. According to the draft Bill, newspapers would be required to renew their licences annually and would also be barred from publishing material that is considered detrimental to national security, stability and unity.

Ugandan journalists have, even under prevailing conditions, occasionally been summoned by the police to explain the sources of their stories, and often to answer charges of publishing information detrimental to national security. Some Daily Monitor journalists, for example, have pending court cases stemming from published stories, while Central Broadcasting Service, or CBS, the Buganda-owned radio station, was last year shut down by authorities who accused it of, among other allegations, spreading lies against the President.


The draft Bill, critics say, will give the government even greater powers to crack the whip over what it considers errant journalism. The critics ask: Who determines, for example, that a line has been crossed when it comes to the publication of information that compromises national security? Who, generally speaking, should know? “In all, the bill provides authorities with sweeping powers to restrict the flow of information and limit public debate at a crucial juncture,” the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement in April, echoing the prevalent view among professional journalists in Uganda.


It is unclear at this point if the proposed amendments will become law, although Mr. Museveni said in his speech that he was hoping emerging issues would “be discussed without making undue accusations” regarding the state of media freedom in Uganda. A discussion of media freedom or the lack of it, he suggested, was misguided. “Uganda has a strong media commensurate to our level of national socio-political development,” he said. “The main socio-political debates in Uganda now are about the administrative functions of the state, not political or other freedoms. The issue of freedoms and rights was sorted in 1986 and coded in the 1995 Constitution.”


Mr. Museveni’s sharpest critique of Ugandan journalism came later that night. “Journalism, though a most profound profession, has been severely abused,” he said. “You are the ears and mouth of society. Ethics, morality and objectivity must therefore guide your reporting. I urge our journalists to interest themselves in the affairs of Africa and, while we share experiences with the rest of the world, still aim at originality.”
These comments, like those before, were also intended to inspire, but they returned to the essential question: Is the government, and President Museveni in particular, qualified to make prescriptions for a healthy media?

Uganda has in recent times witnessed the passing of laws that undermine enjoyment of rights and an increase in proposals for draconian legislation that would not only undermine the enjoyment of rights but also limit the citizen’s role in governance and holding the state accountable.

The Public Order Management Bill, 2009 (POMB) is one of such proposals. Presently the POMB is before Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, which is receiving views on the Bill. If passed into law, the POMB will negatively affect the enjoyment of human rights not only for the general public but also for media practitioners in Uganda.

Proposers of the Bill have argued that the POMB is necessary to protect public order in Uganda. This is against a background of increased demonstrations that many times have resulted in destruction of property and inconvenience to those not taking part in the demonstrations.

Indeed, protection of public order is a duty of the state and the state can restrict or suspend the enjoyment of human rights where such enjoyment of rights will lead to a violation of public order, in this case the freedom of assembly and expression. However, article 43 of the Ugandan Constitution and the international human rights law limit such restrictions to what is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

The POMB in its current form prohibits rather than regulates public meetings and demonstrations. This defeats the purpose for which such laws are made.

The Bill also focuses on the content of the public meetings. It is for this reason that it prohibits public meetings that are aimed at discussing government policies and affairs of management.

Under clause 6(a) the Bill seeks to regulate and penalize Ugandans who will be discussing the failures of government. This not only undermines public participation in decision making but also is contrary to article 29 on freedom of expression, assembly and conscienceless.

To media practitioners, limitations in clause 6(a) will limit their role of seeking, receiving and imparting information, which is an important aspect of freedom of expression.

Clause 6(a) of POMB is likely to contravene article 38 of the Uganda Constitution, which allows Ugandans to use peaceful means, including demonstrations, to participate in governance. Limiting the criticism of government in public as the bill suggests is tantamount to limiting public participation in decision making and holding government accountable for its misdeeds.

According to the Bill, a meeting of three or more persons in a public place or a place declared as so by a police officer is a public meeting. Broadly taken, any meeting of three or more people may need police authorization. The provision is broad and can cover private social meetings and work related meetings such as addressing a press conference. A media practitioner covering such a meeting will be treated as part of the participants with liability similar to the organizers of the meeting. This provision generally will muzzle the media through creating an indirect censorship of the media on what to cover and what not to be covered.

More so the Bill puts safety of individuals and the media covering demonstrations in the hands of the organizers of such meetings. It gives the organizers a duty to ensure safety of participants and bystanders. By this police will be relinquishing its duty to organizers of public meetings.

Public safety and security is a sole duty of the police who should do it while promoting and respecting rights of others. Since the duty to protect is on the organizers of the meetings, we can expect a more brutal police that does not expect to be held accountable for as long as they have protection of the law.

On the other hand POMB prohibits organizers of meetings from telling the media anything if it is against the laws of Uganda (clause 9 of the Bill). The Bill presupposes that the journalists and the organizers of meetings will know what is illegal so as not to say it before the press. The press on the other hand have an indirect limitation of not reporting what was said if it is against the law. Whereas on the face of it, clause 9 looks clear, the problem arises where a person is opposed to a law and is seeking to have it changed. In future it will be possible for police to stop the media from attending certain meetings because they (police) suspects the organizers intend to say something against the law.

Finally the clause 14 of the POMB gives the minister powers to declare some places unfit for public meetings of more than 25 people. This clause seeks to reinstate the position of S. 32 of the Police Act which was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Muwanga Kivumbi Vs Ag. S. 32 gave powers to the Inspector General of Police to prohibit a public meeting if he/she thought it was necessary for public safety. Court was of the view that this was a limitation on the rights to freedoms of assembly and association. By reintroducing the same provision Parliament will not only be limiting the rights against the constitution but will be undermining article 92 which prohibits parliament from enacting laws to overturn the ruling of courts.

Generally the POMB, if passed in its present form, will limit enjoyment of rights for several Ugandans and remove means through which Ugandans can hold government accountable for its deeds or misdeeds, a fact for which it should be rejected.

About the Author: Mr Magelah Peter Gwayaka is a Project Officer for Law Reform at HURINET (Human Rights Network-Uganda)

Other views on the POMB

Uganda Law Society views on the Public Order Management Bill

Civil Society’s perspectives on the Public Order Management bill

Uganda Human Rights Commission’s position on the Public Order Management Bill

Government insists on Public Order Bill