The Law on Red Berets: Disregard the misleading interpretations by NRM leaning lawyers – Nkunyingi Muwada

The Law on Red Berets: Disregard the misleading interpretations by NRM leaning lawyers – Nkunyingi Muwada

Straight to the point.

Section 160 of the UPDF Act only provides for gazetting of insignias,marks and other decorations of the military.

No law or section within the UPDF Act or any other law that isolate or allow general and broad isolation of RED COLOUR for army or isolating Berets in totality of whatever colour as exclusive for Military.

Exclusive attires if any are those that bear exclusive marks or insignia of the UPDF.

The PEOPLE POWER RED BERETS and popular people power attires of various sorts are too unique and different.

No sound person can look at a people power Beret and confuse it with military wear. It does not in any way mislead and does not bear any insignia of forces .

Some actually only bear candidates photos and some bear a word People Power. Its absurd illegality when the military is commanded to arrest civilians on plain misguided orders targeting red attires and berets without regard to insignia or marks.

You can’t purport to own a colour or exclusive rights on design for human wear. Why did they confiscate red T-shirts and other red attires. The actions of the militants is far from the rhetoric of attire but disguised to create political terror to deny people power a dressing identity that has been instrumental as a mobilisation tool.

In disguise the militants are executing a partisan assignment and illegally. They rushed to provide media to NRM leaning lawyers to misquote the law and publicised those interview. That’s the same way they did for Kibalama recently before &after court.

THERE IS NO LAW that bar design, artwork or that isolate a colour. Natural colours are few and can never be exclusive. The law focuses on insignia ,signs, marks etc .Its as such impossible for any sober law interpreter to pronounce red attires in Uganda to belong to the military. That’s outrageous and reckless assumption .

Even the vague gazzate notice of the army though still being challenged in Court but does not in its vagueness suggest that every red attire belongs to the Army.

I have not traced by now even a singular official legal opinion from the Solicitor General or Attorney General to the military guiding them on interpretation of the purported gazzated attire. These militia read for themselves plain English and claim to have understood eventually picking guns and violating peoples rights in the guise of executing orders or implementing the misquoted law.

There is a rising uncoordinated wave of militias self appointing themselves as legal interpreters. Its intentional to pursue orders from above and persecute political targets than implementing legal observance.

We stand to challenge the military on the law they purport to quote. They studied swahiri,we studied English and they must listen or consult before purporting to act. Unfortunately the laws are in English.

Its my sound legal reasoning that the law does not prohibit any and every red attire save only those with Army or military marks & signs.

The logo PEOPLE POWER or photos of politicians like BobiWine appearing on any red attire makes such attire different from military wear. No court of law can convict a person for puting on an attire with a word people power or a candidate portrait.

The arrests of such people is as such persecution and their trial is out rightly illegal. Little wonder those in court arrested disguisively with red attire are being interestingly tried for breaching covid regulations. Its politics at play not who breached which law.

Nkunyingi MUWADA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *