Abstract
This article argues that the failure by the Ugandan government to put in place clear regulations governing the use of force and firearms by the police and armed security forces, particularly during joint police and military operations, as part of arrest and crowd control operations, threatens to violate the right to life, the right to freedom from inhumane treatment, the right to assemble and the right to a remedy under the Ugandan Constitution. It argues that the constitutional, statutory law and case law framework in Uganda can facilitate public interest litigation in order to secure the adoption by the Ugandan government of comprehensive and internationally-accepted standards on the use of force and firearms by police and armed security forces. The article draws on a recent progressive decision of the High Court in James Muhindo & 3 Others v Attorney-General, and the Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2019 to expound on the proactive potential of article 50 of Uganda's Constitution to deliver expedited institutional and human rights-oriented reforms and to afford the courts oversight functions in the implementation of these reforms through structural interdict. These aspects of the public interest litigation framework in Uganda offer a pathway to civilian-led reform in a highly state-controlled, politicised and militarised police and security sector over which Ugandans otherwise have no civilian oversight. Thus, the article explores the potential of public interest litigation as an empowering tool in competing approaches to state formation in transitional contexts and positions public interest litigation as a transformative response to militarisation in a fragile state.
Highlights
Militarisation is defined variably by different scholars but essentially involves ‘the enlargement of the role of the military establishment in society’.1 Some indicators of militarisation include the proportion of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) allocated to the military; the frequency with which the military is used to suppress civil disorder; the frequency of military coups; and the size of the domestic arms industry.[2]
Summary: This article argues that the failure by the Ugandan government to put in place clear regulations governing the use of force and firearms by the police and armed security forces, during joint police and military operations, as part of arrest and crowd control operations, threatens to violate the right to life, the right to freedom from inhumane treatment, the right to assemble and the right to a remedy under the Ugandan Constitution
It argues that the constitutional, statutory law and case law framework in Uganda can facilitate public interest litigation in order to secure the adoption by the Ugandan government of comprehensive and internationally-accepted standards on the use of force and firearms by police and armed security forces
Summary
Militarisation is defined variably by different scholars but essentially involves ‘the enlargement of the role of the military establishment in society’.1 Some indicators of militarisation include the proportion of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) allocated to the military; the frequency with which the military is used to suppress civil disorder; the frequency of military coups; and the size of the domestic arms industry.[2]. This article focuses on the manifestation of militarisation within the framework of use of force by the police and army as instruments of political power and control of civilian affairs It posits that the permissible legal framework for the use of force by the police in Uganda entrenches a colonial legacy of violence as a means of regime survival and control as opposed to a policy of the protection of citizens. By referring to the election period protesters as ‘an insurrection’ and deploying Major-General Lokech due to, among other qualities, his proven experience in combating urban warfare while in Somalia,21it was clear that President Museveni, the commander-in-chief of the UPDF, perceived of the election protests as an armed conflict scenario requiring a militarised response and not a law enforcement approach This attitude meant that policing standards retreated in favour of military force and military tactics. Ugandan law on the use of force enables and facilitates a militarised approach to law enforcement, as discussed below
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
