On the morning of December 30, a burglary at my home revealed more than just the loss of personal property. Five other households in the same neighbourhood suffered similar fate that night. What followed was not merely a search for stolen items, but a sobering encounter with the realities of Uganda’s public institutions, particularly the police. Reporting the crime exposed a system in which unofficial payments have become normalised.
I was required to purchase stationery for police documentation, pay ‘facilitation’ fees to the scene-of-crime officers, contribute towards hiring a police dog, and provide transport facilitation for case files to move between police stations on top of the official bank payment for a police report. The report was only released after 11 days. These demands were made openly and without hesitation, suggesting that corruption has become routine rather than exceptional.
This experience, alongside growing public debate and commentary questioning the ruling National Resistance Movement’s campaign slogan, ‘Protecting the gains,’ invites deeper reflection. What exactly are these gains, and who benefits from their protection?
More importantly, can gains be protected when the institutions tasked with safeguarding the State appear weakened, compromised, or fractured? The Electoral Commission offers a troubling example. The Commission failed to provide the voters’ register to participating political parties within the legally required time frame. Voter education, particularly on the use of biometric voting machines to be introduced for the first time in this election, was limited.
The Commission also remained largely silent on incidents of electoral violence, effectively ceding its mandate to the police and the military. Meanwhile, its most visible activity was the ‘denomination’ of candidates, most of whom belong to the Opposition. This raises serious questions about competence, independence, and possible political influence. The Judiciary, traditionally a refuge for citizens seeking redress, has also shown signs of strain.
In a habeas corpus application concerning two Kenyan nationals abducted after attending an Opposition rally, acting judge SP Kinobe remarked, ‘I find that no one can squeeze blood from a stone. The State can only produce what it has, and it would, therefore, be unrealistic to expect the desired outcome from circumstances that could not, in any case, yield it,’ implying that it could not account for the detainees.
Days later, the President admitted that the same individuals had been held incommunicado by State agencies for 39 days before being released. This contradiction underscores the Judiciary’s limited capacity when confronted with Executive power and secrecy-cue the continual incarceration of Dr Kizza Besigye! Parliament, too, has raised concerns.
The passage of a Shs8 trillion supplementary budget in the second quarter of the financial year, rather than toward its end, shocked many observers. Coupled with increasingly partisan and combative campaign rhetoric from parliamentary leadership, one wonders if it still has a role as a check on the Executive’s authority. The conduct of security agencies during the campaign period was particularly alarming.
Members of the Uganda Police Force and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces were seen openly campaigning for the ruling party, despite legal prohibitions. There were multiple reports of excessive force against Opposition supporters, including beatings and shootings, which were often swiftly downplayed by official spokespersons. In one disturbing incident, soldiers were filmed violently arresting a young man for waving the National Flag, a symbol of unity. Ironically, the flag, even printed on security personnel uniforms, is now a trigger for repression.
Beyond institutions, ordinary citizens and businesses are paying the price. Street vendors have had their merchandise destroyed during security operations, shops in Gulu were vandalised the same day NUP presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, alias Bobi Wine’s supporters, were beaten like cows, and young software developers were intimidated into shutting down a voter-information application. Civil society actors continue to face arrests, while enforced disappearances and post-abduction prosecutions have become disturbingly common.
The cumulative impact of these developments raises a sobering question: When institutions are weakened by corruption, violence, and political interference, will there be any gains left to protect? The pain inflicted during the campaign and election period risks hollowing out the very foundations of governance, rendering the promise of ‘protecting the gains’ not only questionable, but ultimately futile.