Uganda Police Briefing: Jennifer Nakangubi (Full Figure)& Electoral Neutrality Pledge

Uganda Police Force Vows Rigorous Investigation into Assault of Presidential Adviser, Pledges Electoral Impartiality in Comprehensive Briefing

KAMPALA – In a wide-ranging press briefing that tackled issues from a viral assault to the integrity of the upcoming electoral season, the Uganda Police Force has sought to project an image of rigorous procedure and unwavering impartiality. The address, led by a senior police spokesperson, was dominated by the shocking case involving presidential adviser Jennifer Nakangubi, widely known as ‘Full Figure’, and served as a firm reminder of the force’s intended role in the nation’s tense political landscape.

In a definitive address to the nation, the Uganda Police Force has formally commenced a high-profile investigation into the violent assault of presidential adviser Jennifer Nakangubi, widely known as ‘Full Figure’, following the widespread circulation of a disturbing viral video. The police spokesperson’s detailed briefing served multiple critical functions: it outlined the stringent ‘standard procedure’ for the investigation, forcefully challenged unverified narratives circulating on social media, and provided a clear public blueprint for escalating complaints against officer misconduct. In a politically significant move, the force also issued a firm pre-electoral pledge of neutrality, asserting that all its actions are guided solely by publicly available laws and regulations—not hidden agendas. This introduction delves into the key announcements from the briefing, analysing the force’s strategy to convert public outrage into procedural justice and its ongoing challenge to bridge the profound gap between promise and public trust. As the ‘Full Figure’ case becomes a litmus test for institutional integrity, all eyes are on the police to see if their actions will finally match their words.

The briefing provided a clear glimpse into the force’s strategy for handling high-profile cases and managing public perception. Here are the five key points explored:

1. A Viral Outrage Promises a Formal Response: A Deeper Dive

The Ugandan police’s confirmation of an investigation into the assault on Jennifer Nakangubi, prompted by a viral video and her formal complaint, represents a significant modern evolution in law enforcement response. This incident illustrates perfectly the new dynamic between social media, public pressure, and official police procedure in Uganda.

In the past, an assault might have been a matter for a local police station, potentially resolved quietly or lost in the complexities of the system. Today, however, the ubiquitous nature of the smartphone has changed the game entirely. The video of the assault did not merely document the event; it amplified it, creating a wave of national public outrage that could not be ignored. The police spokesperson’s acknowledgement that the footage was “saturating” social media spaces is a key admission of this new reality. It indicates that the force is acutely aware of the court of public opinion, which now operates in parallel with the court of law.

This creates what can be described as a dual-trigger mechanism for police action:

The Official Trigger: The formal complaint filed by Ms. Nakangubi herself. This is the traditional, legally sound foundation for any investigation. It provides the victim’s account, grants the police formal jurisdiction to act, and initiates the official chain of evidence.
The Public Trigger: The viral video. This acts as powerful, crowdsourced evidence and creates an immense accountability factor. It places the case in the full glare of the public eye, making inertia or inaction a potentially damaging option for the authorities.

The old adage, “The sun cannot be hidden by a winnowing basket,” is particularly apt here. In the digital age, attempts to obscure or ignore a clear injustice are increasingly futile. The blinding light of public scrutiny, generated by viral content, shines through any attempt to cover it up. This forces institutions to respond with a level of transparency and urgency that might not have been guaranteed otherwise.

The police’s message, that “what happens online will not stay online if it constitutes a crime,” is a crucial statement of intent. It serves two purposes:

A Deterrent to Perpetrators: It warns those who might commit acts of violence in the belief that they will face no consequences. It signals that even if they are not caught on the spot, a single video from a bystander can bring the full force of the law to their doorstep.
An Assurance to the Public: It seeks to build trust by demonstrating that the police are responsive to public concerns and are leveraging technology to aid their work, not ignoring it.

However, this new dynamic also presents a challenge. The police must ensure that their response is not solely dictated by viral trends. The investigation must be thorough, impartial, and based on evidence that will stand up in a court of law, not just in the court of public opinion. The real test will be whether the same rigour and public commitment are applied to cases that, while equally serious, do not benefit from the accelerant of a viral video. The promise of a formal response is a positive step, but its true value will be measured by its unwavering adherence to due process, regardless of a case’s online popularity.

2. The “Standard Procedure”: Summons, Evidence, and Court – A Comprehensive Explanation

The police spokesperson’s meticulous outlining of the “obvious and predictable” procedure for investigations is a critical piece of public communication, deeply rooted in the principles of justice and the specific operational realities of the Uganda Police Force. This is not merely an administrative checklist; it is a deliberate narrative aimed at reinforcing the rule of law and managing a volatile court of public opinion.

At its core, this standard procedure is a three-act play designed to transition a case from public spectacle to legal fact:

The Summons: “A Call to Explain”
The act of summoning an alleged suspect is the formal initiation of the legal process. It is a powerful tool that moves the investigation from the realm of speculation into a structured, official dialogue. In the Ugandan context, a summons from the police carries significant weight. It is a signal that the state has taken note and that an individual is required to account for their actions. This step is crucial for establishing order, ensuring the right person is questioned, and affording them the initial opportunity to present their side of the story, thus upholding the principle of hear the other side (hear the other side).
The Evaluation of Evidence: The Threshold of “Content”
The spokesperson’s use of the term “content” – Ugandan police parlance for sufficient, credible, and convincing evidence – is the linchpin of the entire process. This is where the case is made or broken. Evidence gathering involves collecting the viral video (which, while powerful, is rarely sufficient on its own), obtaining witness statements, gathering forensic evidence if applicable, and recording the victim’s testimony. The evidence must meet a specific threshold to prove wrongful acts of a crime (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind) beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal conviction. This meticulous evaluation is a safeguard against malicious prosecutions and a guarantee that the process is driven by fact, not emotion or public pressure.
The Court: The Final Arbiter
The ultimate goal of this procedure is to present a watertight case before a competent court. The police role is investigatory and prosecutorial; it is not to judge or punish. By emphasising that processed suspects will be “taken to court,” the spokesperson reinforces the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers. It is a reminder that the judiciary, not the police, is the final arbiter of guilt or innocence. This is the bedrock of a democratic society, ensuring that justice is not meted out by the executive but is delivered through an independent and transparent legal process.

The Strategic Importance in the Ugandan Setting

The public reiteration of this procedure serves several strategic purposes:

Managing the “Mob Justice” Mentality: In an era where viral outrage can quickly morph into demands for instant retribution, the police are projecting an image of calm, methodical professionalism. They are signalling that while they feel the public’s anger, it does not sway them. The old adage, “Slowly, slowly, you catch the monkey that eats your maize,” aptly applies here. It speaks to the virtue of a patient, deliberate, and strategic approach to achieve a lasting result, rather than a hasty one that may fail.
Reassurance of Impartiality: By stating that the process is “predictable,” the force implies it is applied uniformly. The message is that whether a case involves a prominent figure or an ordinary citizen, the same rules of evidence and procedure will apply. This is meant to combat perceptions of bias or that certain individuals are “above the law.”
A Shield Against Allegations of Partisanship: In a highly charged political environment, a transparent and by-the-book procedure is the police’s best defence against accusations of conducting witch-hunts or acting on political directives. It allows them to say, “We are merely following the established process.”

In conclusion, the “standard procedure” is far more than a bureaucratic routine. It is a statement of principle. It is the institutional pathway designed to transform raw outrage into cool justice, ensuring that the imperative to do something is always tempered by the duty to do it right. The true test, however, remains in its consistent and impartial application across all cases, both those that blaze across social media and those that unfold away from the public eye.

3. Pushing Back Against Unverified “Many Cases” Narrative: A Comprehensive Explanation

The police spokesperson’s decision to dedicate a significant portion of the address to challenging the narrative of “many cases” against Jennifer Nakangubi was a calculated and crucial manoeuvre in the modern battle for public credibility. This was not a simple dismissal of rumours; it was a strategic defence of institutional procedure and an attempt to reassert the formal legal framework over the chaotic court of public opinion.

At its heart, this pushback operates on several interconnected levels:

1. Upholding the Principle of Verified Fact Over Unsubstantiated Allegation:
The spokesperson’s demand for verification is a foundational principle of justice. In legal terms, an allegation remains merely an assertion until it is supported by evidence that can be tested and scrutinised. By criticising the reliance on “unsubstantiated social media claims,” the police were drawing a clear line between informal gossip and a formal chargeable complaint. This distinction is vital. A justice system that acted on every rumour would be arbitrary and oppressive. The spokesperson was therefore reiterating a core tenet of the rule of law: that action must be based on provable fact, not popular sentiment or whispered campaigns.

2. Challenging the Methodology of Trial by Social Media:
The address directly confronted the growing phenomenon where individuals are tried and convicted in the public sphere based on allegations that may be exaggerated, miscontextualised, or entirely fabricated. The spokesperson’s message was that social media is an arena for discourse, not for deposition. Its currency is likes and shares, not sworn affidavits and cross-examined evidence. By refusing to engage with the nebulous concept of “many cases” without specific details, the police were attempting to dismantle this parallel, unaccountable system of justice and redirect the public’s energy towards the official, structured one.

3. A Call for Personal Responsibility in the Justice Process:
The statement, “if you feel you are one of them, act like her: go to the police,” is profoundly significant. It does two things:

It Validates the Correct Channel: It affirms that Ms. Nakangubi’s action—filing a formal complaint—is the only legitimate way to initiate a police investigation. It creates a clear and replicable standard for all citizens.
It Places Responsibility on the Accuser: It challenges those making the allegations to transition from anonymous commentators into formal complainants. This shift carries weight; it requires one to move from the safety of collective online outrage to the individual responsibility of swearing an affidavit, which is a legal document. This often separates genuine grievances from malicious propaganda, as making a false statement to the police is a criminal offence.

The Applicable Adage:
The entire rebuttal brings to mind the Luganda adage, “Ekigambo kya mu nnimiro tekirigwa mu bbanga.” This translates to, “Words spoken in the garden are not heard in the courtyard.” The proverb speaks to the dangers of hearsay, gossip, and the distortion of information as it travels from a private source into public domains. The police were effectively arguing that the allegations were unverified “words from the garden” that had spiralled into a loud, public “courtyard” narrative without any of the necessary verification. Their role, they implied, is to only act on information that is formally presented in the “courtyard” of a police station, where it can be properly examined.

The Broader Institutional Imperative:
For the Uganda Police Force, this is also a matter of operational integrity and resource management. They cannot open investigations based on vague trends online. They require a named complainant, specific incidents, and tangible evidence to begin work. To do otherwise would be to allow their agenda and resources to be dictated by social media trends, which is an untenable way to run a law enforcement agency. The pushback is a defence of their operational protocol.

In conclusion, this portion of the address was far more than a denial. It was a public lesson in civics and legal procedure. It was an attempt to stem the tide of misinformation by empowering factual, actionable claims while isolating and dismissing unverified rumour. The underlying message was that the path to justice, though sometimes perceived as slow and bureaucratic, is built on a foundation of verified fact and due process—a foundation that gossip, no matter how widespread, can never provide. The effectiveness of this message, however, hinges on the public’s trust that when genuine complainants do come forward, they will be met with professionalism and earnest investigation.

4. A Blueprint for Public Accountability Within the Force: A Comprehensive Explanation

The police spokesperson’s provision of a clear public guide on escalating complaints is a significant and strategic element of modern policing in Uganda. It transcends the immediate case of Jennifer Nakangubi, offering a structural solution to a perennial public grievance: the feeling of powerlessness when faced with institutional inaction or misconduct. This “blueprint for accountability” is a multi-faceted tool designed to manage public trust, reinforce internal discipline, and recalibrate the relationship between the citizen and the state.

Deconstructing the Blueprint:

The outlined escalation path—from the local station to supervisors and up to the Inspector General of Police (IGP)—is not merely a suggestion; it is a formalised channel within the police’s disciplinary and administrative framework. Its effectiveness and purpose can be understood through several lenses:

Empowerment Through Procedure: For the average citizen, a police station can be an intimidating place. The fear of being turned away, ignored, or even harassed by an officer often leads to the abandonment of legitimate complaints. By publicly detailing the exact steps of recourse, the spokesperson demystifies the internal workings of the force. It transforms a citizen from a passive supplicant at a single station into an active claimant within a vast system with multiple points of appeal. This knowledge is a form of power, giving individuals the confidence to persist and the language to use when their initial concerns are dismissed.
Reinforcing the Chain of Command as a Tool for Justice: The blueprint intentionally leverages the force’s own rigid hierarchy. By directing complaints “up the chain,” it uses the system’s structure to ensure its integrity. A officer at a local station is accountable to their Division Commander, who is accountable to the Regional Police Commander, and so on. This makes professional conduct a matter of interest for every superior officer. A complaint against a constable in, say, Kasangati, ultimately reflects poorly on the entire chain of command, giving supervisors a direct incentive to resolve issues at the lowest possible level to maintain discipline and operational effectiveness.
Formalising the “Disciplinary Offence”: The spokesperson’s crucial statement that it is a “disciplinary offence for an officer to refuse to handle a legitimate case” is a powerful legal and ethical anchor. It does two things:
- For the Public: It legitimises their grievance. It confirms that their expectation of service is right and just, and that an officer’s refusal is not just poor service but a breach of professional duty.
- For the Force: It provides the legal basis for internal sanction. It means a complainant is not just making a personal grievance but is alleging a professional misconduct that can be investigated by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU), potentially leading to suspension, demotion, or dismissal for the officer in question.

The Applicable Adage:

This entire process brings to mind a well-known Luganda adage: “Akakolero k’omuggya tekakwatibwa ku mwanyi.” This translates literally to, “The handle of the cooking pot is not taken from the fireplace,” meaning one should not handle a hot issue alone; you need a tool or an intermediary. In this context, the citizen is advised not to burn their hands by endlessly grappling with an uncooperative officer at the local level (the fireplace). Instead, they are given the “tool”—the clear escalation path—to safely and effectively handle the hot issue by engaging those higher up with the authority to rectify it.

The Strategic Imperative for the Force:

Publicly issuing this blueprint is also a savvy act of reputation management for the Uganda Police Force. It serves to:

Shift the Narrative: It moves the conversation from broad accusations of institutional corruption to specific, actionable instances of misconduct that can be reported and, in theory, addressed.
Position the Leadership as Reformers: By inviting complaints to be sent right to the top, the IGP and senior command position themselves as the ultimate arbiters of justice within the force, separate from and superior to any “bad apples” at the bottom. This projects an image of a leadership committed to discipline and professionalism.
Create a Paper Trail: Encouraging formal complaints creates a data trail. Patterns of misconduct linked to specific stations or officers can be identified, allowing for targeted internal interventions, training, or disciplinary measures, rather than relying on anecdotal evidence.

In conclusion, this blueprint is far more than a customer service policy. It is a critical mechanism of governance. It represents an attempt to institutionalise accountability, to provide a sanctioned and safe channel for redress, and to ultimately strengthen the force by purging it of the incompetence and corruption that erodes public trust. Its success, however, is entirely contingent on one critical factor: the genuine willingness of the chain of command, from the supervisor to the IGP, to act decisively upon the complaints they receive. Without this, the blueprint remains merely a well-drawn map leading to a dead end.

5. A Pre-Election Pledge of Neutrality Amidst Scepticism: A Comprehensive Analysis

In the high-stakes theatre of Ugandan politics, the police spokesperson’s pre-election pledge of neutrality is a performance delivered to a deeply sceptical audience. This segment of the briefing was the most politically delicate, designed to pre-empt criticism and assert the force’s role as a guardian of order rather than a tool of the state. Its construction is a nuanced attempt to build legitimacy on a foundation of legalism, experience, and promised transparency.

Deconstructing the Pledge of Impartiality:

The spokesperson’s argument rests on three carefully crafted pillars:

The Primacy of the Law: The assertion that police actions are guided solely by “publicly available laws and regulations” is a powerful appeal to objectivity. It positions the force not as a political entity with preferences, but as a technical body that merely implements black-letter law. This framing is intended to depoliticise their actions. By stating that their mandate is derived from statutes like the Penal Code Act, the Police Act, and the Electoral Commission’s regulations, they present themselves as servants of the law, not of the government of the day. The message is: Our allegiance is to the legal framework, and we will apply it uniformly to all actors.
Re-framing Past “Altercations”: The acknowledgement of past incidents is a critical rhetorical strategy. To dismiss them entirely would be incredible. Instead, the spokesperson re-frames them. By attributing these “altercations” to “violations of specific rules rather than bias,” he performs two tasks:
- It Accepts Factuality: It concedes that clashes occurred, validating public memory and preventing the dismissal of the statement as outright fiction.
- It Shifts the Blame: It moves the cause from institutional partiality to individual transgression—either by the political actor (for violating public order rules) or by a specific officer (for overstepping). This protects the institution’s image by localising fault, thus preserving the idea of systemic neutrality.
The Promise of Transparency and Accountability: The promise of “comprehensive campaign guidelines” is a pre-emptive strike against confusion and claims of arbitrariness. These guidelines, once published, are meant to serve as a contract between the police and the political parties. They will ostensibly detail the rules of engagement: approved venues, notification procedures for rallies, and conduct expected of both officers and supporters. This allows the police to frame any future enforcement action as a simple application of pre-agreed, publicly available rules. Coupling this with the reiterated escalation channels invites a form of collaborative monitoring, suggesting that the force is confident enough in its procedures to be held to them.

The Applicable Adage:

The entire pledge evokes a common Ugandan adage, particularly apt in the political context: “Kyesima kwe bugwere, kyesima kwe ntamu.” This translates to, “One side of the riverbank is for the wild cassava, the other side is for the edible cassava,” implying that things are kept separate for a reason. The police are attempting to convince the public that they maintain this crucial separation. They are asserting that the “riverbank” between the state (the government) and the state institution (the police) is intact—that the partisan interests of the former will not contaminate the lawful operations of the latter. The public’s deep-seated scepticism stems from a fear that this riverbank has eroded, and the two have unhealthily merged.

The Chasm Between Pledge and Perception:

The fundamental challenge for the police lies in a significant trust deficit. For many Ugandans, the pledge of neutrality is heard against a backdrop of historical precedent, where the force’s actions have been perceived as selectively enforcing laws to disadvantage certain political groups. The public’s judgment will not be based on this pronouncement but on observed behaviour. Key tests will include:

Consistency of Application: Will the “comprehensive guidelines” be applied with exacting uniformity to the ruling party and its opponents? Will a traffic infraction or a sound system violation by a ruling party MP be treated with the same urgency as one by an opposition candidate?
Proportionality of Response: Will the use of force—tear gas, arrests, dispersal of crowds—be proportionate and only employed as a last resort, regardless of the political affiliation of the assembly?
Action on Complaints: When complaints are escalated against officers accused of partisan behaviour, will there be visible, transparent disciplinary action?

In conclusion, this pre-election pledge is a necessary piece of political and public relations for the Uganda Police Force. It is a script of professionalism designed for the electoral season. However, it exists in the tense space between a stated ideal and a lived reality. The spokesperson’s words are a promise of what the institution aspires to be: a neutral, rule-bound arbiter. Its authenticity, however, will be proven not in press conferences, but in the fields of rallies, the streets of campaigns, and the court of public opinion where citizens will decide if the wild cassava and the edible cassava have indeed been kept apart.

Conclusion: A Test of Public Trust – A Comprehensive Analysis

The conclusion of the police briefing serves as the crucial final act, where lofty principles meet the hard ground of public expectation. It accurately frames the entire event not as a resolution, but as the opening of a new chapter defined by a single, overarching question: can the institution convert its carefully articulated procedural promises into tangible, consistent, and impartial action? In the Ugandan context, this is the perennial challenge of governance—bridging the yawning gap between policy and practice, between pronouncement and perception.

The Litmus Test of the ‘Full Figure’ Case:

The assertion that this case is a “litmus test for justice” is profoundly accurate. A litmus test, in chemistry, is a simple but decisive indicator that reveals the true nature of a substance. For the public, the handling of this case will reveal the true character of the police force’s commitment to the rule of law.

High-Profile Nature: The involvement of a presidential adviser introduces a critical variable: political influence. The Ugandan public is acutely aware of power dynamics. Will the investigation proceed with the same vigour it would if the suspects were unknown individuals? The adage, “The eye with which you see the small thing is the same eye with which you will see the big thing,” is pertinent here. The public is watching to see if the institution applies a single, unwavering standard of justice. If the investigation is seen to stall, face inexplicable “interference,” or result in unusually lenient outcomes, it will confirm the deepest public scepticism—that connections and status can insulate one from the law. Conversely, a thorough, transparent, and conclusive process would be a powerful demonstrable victory for institutional integrity.

The Theatre of Electoral Policing:

The conclusion rightly identifies that the pledge of electoral neutrality will be proven not in the air-conditioned comfort of a media centre, but in the dust and heat of the campaign trail. This is where theoretical guidelines collide with chaotic reality.

The Test of Consistency: The public will scrutinise whether the “comprehensive guidelines” are applied with mechanical consistency. Will a noise ordinance or a timing violation be enforced with identical rigour against the convoy of a ruling party stalwart and that of an opposition candidate from a smaller party? Any perceived asymmetry will be seized upon as evidence of partisan bias.
The Test of Proportionality: The use of force is the most volatile flashpoint. Will the dispersal of an unauthorised assembly be handled with negotiation and minimal force, or will it be met with a disproportionate, aggressive response that suggests an intent to suppress rather than to regulate? The public’s judgment will be based on comparative evidence, often disseminated through social media, showing how similar situations involving different parties were handled.

The Invitation to Measure:

Ultimately, the spokesperson’s briefing was an invitation—a challenge, even—for the public to measure the force against its own professed standards. This is a risky strategy for an institution operating in an environment of pre-existing distrust. It raises public expectations and sets a specific benchmark against which the police will be judged. The “coming weeks” referred to are not a passive period of waiting; they are an active period of public auditing, where every action and inaction will be recorded, analysed, and compared against the promises made.

In the final analysis, this conclusion underscores that the currency of policing is not words, but trust. And trust is not given; it is earned through demonstrable, consistent action over time. The Uganda Police Force has, through its briefing, written a cheque on the account of public trust. The weeks and months ahead will reveal whether its actions can honour that payment, or if the cheque will be returned, marked with the familiar endorsement of “promise unmet.” The gap between procedural assurance and equitable policing remains wide, and it is a canyon that can only be crossed with the sturdy bridge of impartial, visible, and courageous action.

About
Latest Posts

Hakuna Matata

Director at Multimedia Fusion Lab

Uganda Media