In recent weeks, Uganda Communications
Commission (UCC) has been worked into what some have termed “a frenzy of
issuing memos” warning media houses, recalling licenses and banning several
others for broadcasting material considered in breach of set standards. The
first time I saw one of the UCC letters on social media was in relation to a
warning to one of the media houses for wanton excesses by some panelist (s)/
guest (s) on a popular show. I surmise that since the show was a popular one,
the warning was a paper tiger soon to be jettisoned in the front desk trash
can. The most recent of these heavy-handed moves has been on the broadcasting
of what is termed as “witchcraft”.
Religious expression and spirituality
are inherently complex and matters of esoteric appreciation when it comes to
fine details. The Witchcraft law in place is as archaic as 1957 and its
colonial birthday typifies the sort of ideology colonialists had on African
culture and practices they considered forlorn to their concept of civilization.
This law excludes from the definition of witchcraft, what it terms as, “bona
fide spirit worship or the bona fide manufacture, supply or sale of native
medicines”. This ambiguity seems to seep
into the actions of UCC in its quest to protect “bona fide worship”. Ask
yourself, “What does “bona fide” mean, who determines it and what is the
yardstick?” This law has been minimally tested in cases such as the 1997 case
of Salvatori Abuki v Uganda where court frowned upon the vagueness and scope of
some of the sections of the law but did not think it unconstitutional
warranting an omnibus overhaul.
On the face of it, the unsuspecting
public would be made to believe that there is a watertight case and generic
appreciation of what “witchcraft” is. This is a moot point. It is no surprise,
that UCC cleverly weaved into the context of its actions, references to
“fraud”, “computer misuse” and “penal laws”. Could this suggest that the law
regulating spiritual worship is not sufficient to justify such bans? Is it
coincidental that armchair commentators have jumped onto the tide demanding
that UCC extends its ban to what they termed as “fake” pastors, miracles,
churches and the like? I think not.
Uganda like most African contexts has an
entrenched accommodation and respect for spiritual expression. There was a time
when the leadership of this country moved to turn it into a religious state pushing
many preachers and missionaries into caves. The will of the people and the
charm of time wore those gloomy days away. Most people you meet will confess to
have deferred to a higher power at some point in their lives and if they have
turned from piety, it is usually because of disillusionment with the promises
from the pulpit, weariness with the routines of the pews, supposed academic
enlightenment or defiance against the images of stained glass and spires. We
take cognizance of the fact that previously, at least a couple of top ranked
government officials have asked media to escort them in visiting and appeasing
their ancestors; broadcast the details for our consumption but the disdain in
whatever form did not lead to bans on the material or calls for resignation of
the officers. It bears repeating that the leaders in question were candid and
unapologetic not just about their affiliation with ancestral worship but also
about their brazen expression of it.
In a country where we by law;
acknowledge human kingdoms, chiefdoms, and the attendant imperial cultism, the
situation of spiritual affiliation and expression is more complex than UCC would
like us to believe. The fact that there is a market or audience for such
broadcasting in a clattered media environment, does not mean that Ugandans are
gullible and naïve but that they are deliberate about what they choose to
believe and consume. The example of the leaders that I alluded to earlier, the
corridor whispers about superstitious practices among the who is who in this
country; the veiled ritual practices prevalent in institutionalized religions
in our country speak to the fact that spirituality is very much a part of us;
for some as a closeted guilty pleasure or concealed knife in battle, for others
as a mark of pride and overt extension of their identity. To ferret out such
affiliations and sanitize our society to that acceptable practice (whatever it
might be), banning some people from expressing their beliefs on narrowed
interpretation of their supposed excesses is not an act of justice.
The Constitution from which government
organs derive their regulatory mandate enshrines the power of governance in the
people of Uganda. This makes the leaders in government institutions; trustees
of the mandate and conscience of their people. The people have entrenched in
Article 7 of the Constitution that Uganda shall not adopt a state religion. It
requires a referendum to change this position but rather than rock the boat,
some individuals would use state ballast to bore holes in its bilge. Policies
and guidelines issued by regulators must always be in conformity with the
Constitution. Should the media houses or concerned citizens choose to challenge
UCC’s Draconian approach, they should have their day in the courts of justice
albeit at the taxpayer’s expense.
This leaves one plausible plot for
this saga. In the recent past, a group of religious leaders whose repertoire
merits the term “historical” have found issue with what they consider liberal
minded religious waves and gatherings led by “flamboyant” young people driving
“air-conditioned cars”. The presiding guardians of the vestments can no longer
blame poverty and illiteracy which was the stereotype of the “kiwempe
movement”. To reclaim the patronage of the vibrant middle class and elites
flocking these gatherings, the “Old Guard” has resorted to micro-regulation by
pushing for institutionalization of worship, amendment of laws and policies
such as the infamous, “Draft Policy on Faith Based Organisations”. It would be interesting to find that they
have penetrated UCC and are using sympathizers in the system to kick against
the pricks by micromanaging broadcasting content. Could UCC be casting a wide
net to target a big fish? We can only wait and see what happens next but as an
old fable says, “Sometimes, there is no way to hold back the river”.
By Matsiko Godwin Muhwezi
Lawyer & Author
published by https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1474977/ucc-bans-broadcasting-spiritual-material
No comments:
Post a Comment