As Ugandan writer and reseacher Timothy Kalyegira once observed, “The first casualty of an insecure leadership is free speech.” This insight holds particular relevance today, as the backlash against the Uganda Law Society (ULS) President, Senior Counsel Isaac Ssemakade for his strong language underscores an ongoing struggle in our democracy: a fixation on form over substance.
In any democracy, free speech is not merely a right but a cornerstone of accountability. Leaders and citizens alike must enjoy the freedom to express themselves fully, even forcefully, when necessary. While decorum is valued, it should never become a barrier to addressing urgent national issues. To castigate the ULS President for his tone is to lose sight of the larger forest in favor of counting sticks.
Uganda’s own history of legal battles demonstrates the importance of safeguarding free expression. The landmark case of Andrew Mwenda and Andrew Obbo v. Attorney General (2002) is a testament to this principle. The Constitutional Court ruled that even speech deemed offensive or provocative falls under the protection of free expression. Justice Mulenga eloquently stated, “A democracy must accommodate differences in opinion, including those that unsettle, offend, or provoke. It is in this crucible of disagreement that truth is forged.”
This ruling highlights the critical role of free speech in ensuring accountability and fostering robust public discourse. Leaders must have the latitude to express their frustrations boldly if doing so amplifies concerns about governance, corruption, or human rights.
The struggle for free speech is not unique to Uganda. Throughout history, attempts to suppress this fundamental right have often led to dire consequences for societies.
In 1948, George Orwell wrote, “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” These words remain relevant as we reflect on regimes that stifled dissent, only to sow discontent and resistance. From apartheid South Africa, where leaders like Steve Biko were silenced, to Nazi Germany, where intellectuals and journalists faced persecution, the suppression of free speech has often preceded systemic abuses of power.
Uganda has faced its share of challenges as well. During the regime of Idi Amin, the crackdown on free speech and dissent fostered a culture of fear and impunity. The media, civil society, and even ordinary citizens were silenced, leading to unchecked abuses and a weakened social fabric.
Closer to the present, Dr. Stella Nyanzi’s provocative criticisms of the government brought to light a recurring pattern: a focus on silencing her tone rather than addressing the systemic failures she highlighted. This approach diverts attention from the root causes of dissent and stifles meaningful dialogue.
The backlash against the ULS President mirrors global instances where leaders and public figures faced criticism for their language, only for the substance of their concerns to be overshadowed.
Take, for example, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, whose fiery rhetoric often upset his contemporaries but inspired a nation during its darkest hours. His speech was unapologetic, and his choice of words often unsettled, yet history remembers him for his substance, not his tone.
Similarly, in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr. faced relentless criticism for the “disruptive” nature of his rhetoric. His response was immortalized in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” King’s boldness inspired transformative social change, proving that strong words can lead to powerful actions.
When societies prioritize form over substance, they risk silencing voices that challenge the status quo. The backlash against the ULS President highlights this danger. By focusing on his tone, we ignore the urgent issues he seeks to address—issues like judicial inefficiency, corruption, and governance failures that demand immediate attention.
Suppressing free speech often leads to broader societal consequences. When leaders fear backlash for speaking out, they may self-censor, leaving critical issues unaddressed. As Voltaire famously said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
In Uganda, this dynamic plays out repeatedly. Citizens and leaders alike are discouraged from speaking out against injustices, often under the guise of maintaining “decency” or “public order.” Yet these very restrictions undermine democracy, creating an environment where abuses of power go unchecked.
What’s most concerning in this debate is that some of the critics of the ULS President are fellow lawyers—individuals who should champion free speech as a tool for justice. While decorum has its place, it must never become a weapon to silence voices calling for accountability.
Instead of fixating on the ULS President’s tone, we should channel our energy into addressing Uganda’s real challenges. Corruption, judicial inefficiency, poor service delivery, and governance failures require urgent attention. To focus on semantics while ignoring these pressing issues is a disservice to the nation.
As Ugandan human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo has said, “Free speech is not just a right but a duty in a democracy. It is the foundation of accountability and progress.”
The Way Forward
In a democracy, leaders must have the freedom to express themselves fully—even controversially—if it helps bring critical concerns to light. Citizens and professionals alike must rally around the substantive issues, not engage in trivial debates over language.
It’s time for all responsible citizens to focus on what truly matters. Uganda needs action and solidarity, not distractions. As Thomas Jefferson wisely stated, “The only security of all is in a free press.”
Democracy is not about silence or conformity; it is about open, honest, and even uncomfortable conversations. Let us not lose sight of the forest while counting sticks. Let us focus on the real battles, and let leaders speak with the passion and urgency that Uganda’s challenges demand.
By Robert Asiimwe
The writer is a development practitioner with expertise in climate justice, social justice, and strategic communications.
Comments