Andrew Mitchell’s sanctions will backfire on UK’s interests in Uganda

Ugandans love mob justice.

This is the only reason why some of them are over the moon about financial sanctions that the UK deputy foreign secretary and minister for Africa, Andrew Mitchell, recently imposed on the parliament speaker Anita Among and former ministers Mary Kitutu and Agnes Nandutu.  

None of the three is accused of a crime committed in the United Kingdom. Kitutu and Nandutu are embroiled in ongoing court cases, challenging the alleged acts of corruption in respect of the Karamoja iron sheets saga with which the UK government is officially concerned.

Meanwhile, Among has neither been fingered by any complainant nor charged with corruption under Ugandan law by the Inspectorate of Government and Directorate of Public Prosecutions.

So, what merit does the UK government thus claim for interfering with the internal judicial operations of a sovereign republic?
Viewed objectively, the official reasons for sanctioning the trio are tenuously linked to the prescribed purposes for which a UK minister may invoke Section 1 of the UK Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

With great respect, Mitchell scored an own goal when he announced global anti-corruption sanctions that strike at the heart of Uganda’s sovereignty and undermine mutually cherished common law principles such as sub judice, presumption of innocence and due process.

The sanctions are a dangerous signal to the Ugandan people who are desperate for accountability that the UK government endorses mob justice against Ugandan politicians and their fellow citizens.

Mitchell’s move evokes unpleasant memories of pre-independence deportations of Kabaka Mwanga and Omukama Kabalega, among other prominent critics of British colonialism in Africa, and of former president Idi Amin who in 1972 expelled Asians unceremoniously from Uganda for being ‘corrupt British citizens’ before taking over and redistributing their assets.

This long-arm jurisdiction and bullying practice by the UK government tramples on international laws and undercuts the foundation for Uganda-UK cooperation on furthering the interests of global peace and security and fostering respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

The Ugandan ministry of Foreign Affairs has strongly condemned this move and has lodged serious demarches and a strong protest to the UK side. In addition, it should be swiftly and sternly condemned by every patriot and advocate of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

White Saviour Complex

It is hypocritical of Mitchell to give us a speech about ‘sending a clear message to those who think benefiting at the expense of others is acceptable. Corruption has consequences and you will be held responsible.’

His political nous is blighted by a White saviour complex which does not allow him to understand the ramifications of his latest anti-corruption grandstanding.

Backfire on UK interests

Uganda is a contraption that emerged out of manipulation and violence inflicted on indigenous tribes in furtherance of the aims of British imperialism.

The fragile peace and security we have experienced for the longest episode since official independence in 1962 is based on the 1995 Constitution which, imperfect though it may be, represents the best compromise for political contestation and the administration of justice in present-day Uganda.

It is, therefore, the duty of the UK department responsible for international cooperation, in Mitchell is a political leader, to foster the sinews of peaceful conflict resolution in our nascent democracy by upholding the constitutional and international treaty values that we all hold dear.

Using Ugandan MPs as guinea pigs for an UK initiative aimed at intimidating African lawmakers to assist a UK government foreign policy goal that is unrelated to addressing its concerns over the global corruption problem is blatantly unlawful and tantamount to playing with fire.

It is naive of the UK government to project global power by sparking conditions for a pro-sanctions mob rule in far-flung countries and expect that mobs inspired by its political darlings will set limits.

As a rule, mobs run out of control and tend to cross over borders into Europe and North America. There are so many UK citizens, companies and charities, as well as Asian and US citizens or their interests, that may be harmed as vicarious targets or collateral damage of UK’s inspired mobocracy.

Maintaining public confidence in our public institutions and causing meaningful prosecution to combat impunity is what the Ugandan public expects of the UK’s vaunted anti-corruption clout.

Zero tolerance

Meanwhile, our civic obligation to defend Uganda’s sovereignty is colour-blind: it doesn’t see our political, ethnic, tribal, religious, ideological, racial, gender or class differences. It is not a responsibility for only members of NRM party, but also for the opposition and civil society.

Defending sovereignty permanently requires a policy of zero tolerance, and is not limited to protecting the borders. It also extends to protecting the independence of our indigenous institutions.

We cannot let foreign countries to force us to pick and choose when to protect national sovereignty and independence based on the popularity of the citizen at the centre of the threatened incursion.  

All in all, it would profit the UK to stop the bullying and smear campaign against Ugandan lawmakers.  

The author is the CEO, Legal Brains Trust, a Kampala-based democracy and human rights watchdog.