Here’s a lesson or two for the generals, candidates and their agents; individual responsibility!
The last few days have seen
the generals taking center stage to comment or direct the country’s political
trajectory ahead of the February 18th poll. The Inspector General of Police, Gen. Kale
Kayihura was recently quoted prepping ‘crime preventers’ to fight with guns in
case of a war-like situation; Lt. Gen Henry Tumukunde recently helped Ugandans
understand that close relationship between the army and the NRM political party
from a historical perspective; later on, there came remarks from the Chief of
Defense Forces, Gen. Katumba Wamala who re-assured Ugandans about UPDF’s
commitment to securing the country amidst heightened poll tensions. And just when I thought I had finished the
litany of the drama involving our good-old generals, came a tweet about Gen.
David Sejusa’s detention at Makindye Military barracks over some ‘political
statements’ he made. All these put together would definitely send mixed
messages on the role that security agencies during elections or in partisan
politics.
Uganda’s
legal regime provides for strict political neutrality of army officers although
with prevailing contradictions (in the practical sense). In practice,
this means that the army or individuals within the army should not be involved
in political activities. Their military status precludes them from
participating actively in political meetings, exercise propaganda and
campaigning activity in favour of or against political parties or
candidates. In the same way, serving officers should ideally not be making
public/political statements and pronouncements.
While it is
very difficult to adhere to these guiding principles under a political
structure where the army is represented in Parliament (and other key political
organs of government), it is critical that the army leadership consistently
implores members of the force both in practice and by example to remain
professional, neutral and non-partisan.
This way, security agencies indeed stick to their mandate of maintain
safety and security for all the citizens.
Some of the
recent statements and actions of members of Uganda’s security agencies have high
potential of provoking crimes or can be read through the lenses of threatening
violence.
In times like these, it is important to remind
everyone that we are in the era of models that emphasize individual
accountability. Such models make it rather
difficult for individuals to commit and get away with criminal acts. On one hand, we have the doctrine of
individual responsibility in which an individual is personally liable for
committing crimes. On the other hand, there is the doctrine of command
responsibility. A classic example given to explain the doctrine of command
responsibility is when Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was prosecuted by a
U.S court for crimes committed by troops under his command during the World War
II. In that case, Yamashita was charged with failure to control acts of members
of his command and therefore permitting them to commit crimes.
The confluence of
these two individual accountability doctrines demonstrates the difficulty there
is for those who commit crimes or threaten violence to hide under the banner of
collective or institutional responsibility.
The key players in the
electoral process – especially the security agencies, candidates and their
agents must remember that when the time for accountability comes, criminal acts
including acts of threatening violence will be pegged to the respective
individuals and not the institutions they represent.
Whereas key players
are held responsible for their own actions, they too must know that they are
justly blamable for the actions or inactions of their subordinates. Therefore, leaders in different spaces will
not in any way shirk accountability or feign ignorance of the crimes committed
by those under their command.
Instead of sounding
war drums ahead of the February 18th poll, leaders should be re-assuring citizens;
all frontrunners should by now be pledging to be more vigilant in ensuring a
peaceful election.
As we head to the
poll, we must all know that each of us will have to file a personal
accountability for our actions or inactions at the end of the day.
Should you use your
space to incite violence, provoke illicit behavior, arouse conflict, instigate
fear, preside over crimes being committed or be seen not to act against
criminalities, then, you will be personally liable for the results.
Comments
Post a Comment