PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
PUBLIC ORDER MANAGEMENT BILL, 2011
The Parliamentary Committee on Legal and Parliamentary
affairs on the Public Order Management Bill proposed the following amendments
after analyzing the Bill and receiving memoranda from some stakeholders;
1.
Clause
2: Interpretation
i)
Substitute for the definition of “political
organisation” the following -
“any organisation the objects of
which include the influencing of the political process or sponsoring a
political agenda, whether or not it also seeks to sponsor or offer a platform
to a candidate for election to a political office or participate in the
governance of Uganda at any level.”
Justification: To bring it in consonance with the definition
contained in the Political Parties and Organizations Act, 2005.
ii)
Delete the definition of and replace it with the
following:
“Public place” or “public premises” includes
any public way and any building, place or
conveyance to which, for the time being, the public are entitled or permitted
to have access either without any condition or upon condition of making any
payment and nay building or place which is for the time being used for any
public or religious meetings or assembly or as an open court.”
Justification: to bring in line with the definition contained in
the Penal Code Act, Cap 120 of the Laws of Uganda.
- In clause 4 page 5: Power of the Inspector General of Police.
By redrafting the clause to read
as follows:-
“The Inspector General of Police
shall have the power to regulate the conduct of all public meetings in
accordance with the law.”
Justification: To remove the restrictions that were found
unconstitutional in Muwanga Kivumbi v. The Attorney General of Uganda Constitutional
petition No. 09 of 2005. That is, the clause reproduces section 32
(2) of the Police Act which was declared unconstitutional in the afore
mentioned case.
- In clause 6 page 5: Meaning of “public meeting.”
i)
In sub clause (1), by deleting the words;
“of three or more persons in or”
appearing on line 2 and the words “or premises wholly or partly open to air.”
Justification: Numbers are very complex and difficult to determine.
It is a difficult provision to enforce. The committee agreed with the proposal
to remove the restriction in terms of numbers because it enhances the right to
assemble and demonstrate. Similarly, a meeting of three persons cannot pose a
danger that requires police regulation.
ii)
By
deleting paragraphs (a) and (b).
To avoid discrimination in lieu of article 21 of the
Constitution.
4. Clause 6(2) page 5:
By deletion
the entire clause.
Justification: the clause gives fertile
ground for discrimination as outlawed by article 21 of the Constitution. The
committee agreed with this proposal as it is not easy to ascertain the
exclusiveness of the lawfulness of a meeting.
- Clause 7 page 6:
i)
In sub clause (1), by substituting for the words
“at least seven days” appearing on lines 3 and 4 the words “at least four
days”.
Justification:
There is need for the police to
make the necessary arrangements to render sufficient security for the
participants of the meetings. The duration is also necessary for the police to
inform the general public who maybe within the neighboring areas of the
meeting. The committee agreed with the proposal as there are demonstrations that
are organized spontaneously and intended to show immediate discontent.
ii)
In sub
clause 7(2)(b) by substituting for the words “ which shall be between
6:00am and 6:00pm” the words “provided that political meeting shall not be held
beyond 6:00pm.”
Justification: To put a time limit on
when political meetings can be held.
iii)
Immediately after clause 7(2) by inserting
a new clause (3)to read as follows:-
“(3) The written notice shall be filled in
triplicate and upon immediate completion of part 9 thereof copies shall be
given to he applicant and the proprietor of the venue where the public meeting
shall be held.”
Justification: To clarify on the
procedure after the notice has been served.
iv)
By inserting immediately after the new sub
clause (3) the following:
“(4) where a
public meeting is held, each of the persons organizing it is guilty of an
offence if –
(a)
The requirements of this section as to notice
have not been satisfied, or
(b)
The date when it is held, the time when it
starts, or its route, differs from the date, time or route specified in the
notice.
(5) it is a
defence for the accused to prove that he or she did not know of, and neither
suspected nor had reason to suspect, the failure to satisfy the requirements or
(as the case may be) the difference of date, time or route.
(6) To the extent
that an alleged offence turns on a difference of date, time or route, it is a
defence for the accused to prove that the difference arose from circumstance
beyond his control or from something done with the agreement of an authorized
officer or by his direction.
Justification: for clarity.
6. Clause 7 (5) page 7:
Substitute the
words “the Inspector General of Police” for the words “An authorized officer”.
Justification: The authorized officer
is more accessible than the Inspector General of Police. The Committee agreed with
the proposal since it would ease communication.
7. Clause 8(1) (c) page 7:
Delete paragraph
(c) which reads “for any other reasonable cause”.
Justification: The sub clause is
ambiguous and has the potential for broad and arbitrary application. The
committee agreed with the proposal as it restricts the exercise of powers by
the authorizing officer.
8. Clause 8(4) page 8:
i)
Delete
the words “other than the Inspector General of Police’ in the second line.
Justification: The Authorizing officer
is a delegate of the Inspector General of Police as such the IGP is not the
appropriate appellate forum.
ii)
Substitute
for the words “Inspector General of Police” in the last line of the clause the
words “a Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the meeting is scheduled to take
place.”
Justification: Since the authorized
officer works on instruction of the IGP a magistrate is a neutral arbiter. The
Committee agreed with the proposal as it introduces an impartial authority, the
Magistrate.
9. Clause 8 (5) page 8:
Delete the words “A
person aggrieved by the decision of the Inspector General of police may, within
thirty days appeal to the High Court.”
Justification: This follows the
amendment of sub clause (4) above.
10. Clauses 9(1) (b), (2) and (3):
By deletion.
Justification: These powers are
adequately catered for under clause 10 (f).
11. Clause 10 (1):
i)
In sub clause (1) insert the word “before”
immediately after the word “order”. Further insert the words “and after”
immediately after the word “during” but before the letter “a”.
Justification: To widen the police
responsibility to extend to before, during and after the public meeting.
ii)
In sub clause (f) substitute for the word
“crowds” the word “individuals”.
Justification: The use of the word ‘crowd’
opens doors for dispersing of the persons attending the public meeting.
iii)
Immediately after sub clause (f), insert a new
clause reading as follows -
“(3) Without
prejudicing an aggrieved party’s rights to seek civil redress, a police officer
who unlawfully or unnecessarily exercises his authority under sub clause (2)
commits an offence and shall on conviction be punished in accordance with
paragraph 28 of the disciplinary code of conduct of police provided in the
Police Act”.
Justification: To provide an avenue to
regulate the conduct of police officers who are charged with public order
management.
12. Clause 11: page 9 -10;
By deletion.
Justification:
provision is already under section 28 of the Police Act, Cap 303 of the laws of
Uganda. The clause is therefore redundant.
13. Clause 12(1) (b)
By deleting the
words “not less than one” and the words “every fifty”. Further add the letter “s” at the end of the
“steward”.
Justification: Numbers are very
difficult to ascertain.
14. Clause 12(1) (c) page 10:
Add at the beginning
of the clause the words “cooperate with the police to”.
Justification: To ensure that there is
cooperation between both parties to ensure the elimination of firearms at
public meetings. The committee agreed with the proposal as it puts back the burden
of ensuring order in society to the police.
15. Clause 12 (1) (d):
By deletion of
entire clause, “ensure that statements made to the media and public do not
conflict with any law”.
Justification: It is difficult to
enforce.
16. Clause 12 (1) (e):
By substituting
the words “6:00p.m” the words “agreed time”.
17. Clause 12(1)(h) page 10:
Replace the entire
paragraph with the following –
“(h) in
cooperation with the police undertake measures provided for under section 12 to
ensure that there is no loss to a person or damage to property as a result of
holding a public meeting.”
Justification: It
is not possible for every organizer of a demonstration to ensure that no loss
or damage whatsoever is caused by the participants. The committee agreed with
the proposal as it puts back the burden of ensuring order in society to the
police.
18. Clause 13: page 11
By deletion.
Justification: The clause is redundant
since it reproduces the provisions of section 40 of the Police Act, Cap 303 of
the Laws of Uganda.
19. Clause 15: page 11
i)
In sub clause (1)
By substituting
for the word “tranquility” the word “order” and by deletion of the words “at
which it is reasonable to suppose that more than twenty-five persons will be
present unless a permit has been obtained by the person or persons concerned.”
Justification: The clause imposes very
stringent restrictions on the enjoyment of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms
and rights under article 29 of the Constitution.
ii)
In sub
clauses (2) to (9)
By deletion.
Justification:
The provisions are already contained in section 35 of the Police Act.
iii)
Immediately
after sub clause (1)
Insert a new sub clause (2) to read as
follows –
“(2) A statutory
instrument made under this provision shall before taking effect be laid before
Parliament by way of motion for a resolution of Parliament approving it.”
Justification: To ensure that
parliament scrutinizes the powers exercised by the Minister that affect the
rights of citizens.
20. Clause 16 page 13:
By deletion.
Justification: It is already catered
for under clause 15.
21. Clause 17 page 14:
By inserting a new
sub clause (4) immediately after sub clause (3) reading as follows -
“(4) Any
regulations made under this provision shall before taking effect be laid before
Parliament by way of motion for a resolution of Parliament approving them”.
22. Schedule
3 page 18:
Delete the entire
schedule.
Justification: It is catered for under
the amendment proposed for clause 15.
23. Cross
references
By inserting
immediately after the words “Traffic and Road Safety Act, 1998” the words –
‘Police Act, Cap
303”.
Is this a solution to the violation of Human Rights as was in the first draft of POMB?? Your say!!
