Criminology

COMMUNITY POLICING: AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF DETECTING AND PREVENTING CRIME IN UGANDA

Access to justice, safety and the right to live without fear is important for everyone.[1]

Background

In Uganda, the efficiency and effectiveness of the police in all areas of its operations continue to be challenged, more so with the increase in population.[2] With its service strength currently standing at 14,000 and policing a population of 28 million people, the police are overstretched with a policing/population ratio of 1:2000 as opposed to the recommended United Nations standard of 1:15000. As a result the level of crimes and violence continue to rock the nation because deployment cannot be made in every area. Mushemeza[3] for instance writes that Karamoja is the worst hit with high levels of crimes, cattle rustling and associated violence. He attributes this to the limited capacity and numbers of personnel in the area.[4]


This dilemma necessitates the employment of other methods to ensure that law and order is maintained in such areas facing the same fate as Karamoja. This is because the Government and the police are cast with a constitutional obligation to protect the citizenry and their property. The police are particularly obliged by Article 212(c) to detect and prevent crime in society. In doing this, they must cooperate with the civilian authority and other security organs as well as the general population.[5]

Pursuant to clauses (c) and (d) of the same Article the police launched community policing program with a view of involving the local communities in fighting crime in their respective areas through cooperating with the police and applying the neighborhood watch principle. In a recent interview with the Independent Magazine, the Inspector General of Police, Major General Kale Kayihura reiterated the commitment of the police to promote community policing the following words:

“We are building a force that is technically competent and ideologically very close to the people in all senses; respecting the people, partnering with people and delivering to them. We are addressing the technical requirements to build the capabilities necessary to achieve the Constitutional mandate and also this ideological re-orientation of the force to be close to the people”.[6]

Commissioner Kasingye[7] equally appreciates the value of community policing when he says that the objectives of detecting crimes, criminals and addressing the root causes of crime, as well as the fear of crime is drawn from a community centered perspective.

Nevertheless, despite these positive statements, community policing has not yet been operationalized by the police force. It seemingly remains the business of the Department of Community Affairs and a few executives at the centre of the police service. Accordingly, community-policing principles have not yet spread effectively across all ranks of the police. Even then, it is not yet effectively embedded in a relationship between the police and the public.

Thanks to the Netherlands government, which has provided three million Euros (about Shs4billion) worth of funding to improve on community policing and provide efficient resource support to the service in Karamoja region. With this money, the government of Uganda intends to establish at atleast a police post at each of the 43 sub counties in the region.[8] According to Mushemeza[9] part of this money shall be utilized to train and deploy more intelligence police personnel to track criminal elements in the region.


Community policing defined
Various scholars have defined community policing. Loosely defined, it means a system of policing whereby the people act together with the police to prevent crime and disorder in communities.[10] It requires the police and the community to find joint solutions to problems through a process of mutual consultation and participation.

This definition does not differ from that adopted by Human Rights Network (HURINET). In its report on the National Training Workshop for Police, it defines community policing as a collaborative effort between the police and the community that identifies problems of crime and disorder by involving all elements of the community in the search for a solution to these problems.[11]

The report acknowledges the fact that the police alone cannot control crime but require the active support of the community to prevent and detect crime, reduce fear of crime and improve community-police relations.[12] From this report, it is apparently emphasized that mobilizing communities, adopting a problem solving approach and transforming the police to become more operationally independent and flexible at local levels, coupled with close partnerships with stakeholders is the most viable way to detecting and preventing crime in Uganda.[13]

The core principles of community policing include[14] an established partnership between the police and the community, involvement of the community in identifying security issues and use of creative problem solving techniques

Community policing in Uganda thus requires that the people and the police act together to prevent crime through establishment of crime prevention panels, neighborhood watch, marking property, media and community awareness programmes as well as reinstatement of community Liaison officers. All these derive from the fact that the police is a democratic organization inclined towards service of society rather than the state and accountable to the society, for it is tasked with keeping law and order as enshrined in the 1995 Constitution (as amended).[15] In fact, as aforesaid, Article 212 (d) mandates the Police force to among others cooperate with the civilian authorities and the general population in the execution of its duties.

Community policing and its benefits
There are a lot benefits that come with community policing. Firstly, it makes safety and security everybody’s responsibility, not just that of the law enforcement Agencies; enables the community to have a say in safety and security issues as they understand the issues affecting them; maximizes resources within the community through shared responsibility and joint efforts; improves police accountability to the community by providing mechanisms for addressing complaints; mobilizes the community to address pertinent issues beyond their immediate security (such as development); contributes to safer societies leading to enhanced economic development; encourages networking, constructive social relations and greater cohesion within the Community. In all, it improves trust and confidence between community and the police. It has been argued that trust is the value that underlies and links the components of community partnership and problem solving;[16] that a foundation of trust will allow police to form close relationships with the community that will produce solid achievements, without which, effective policing is impossible.

Community Policing in Uganda: A historical perspective.
Community policing was first introduced in Uganda in 1989 and this was in two police divisions-Old Kampala and Katwe, but it did not last.[17] It was revived in 1993 as a national programme with the assistance of the British government, mainly to bridge the distance between the police and the public and to mobilize community resources in the fight against crime. This implies that the focus of community policing programme has been crime prevention.

Community policing in practice
Mechanisms put in place have included Crime prevention panels, a neighborhood watch scheme, property marking schemes and public sensitization activities. Crime prevention panels and the neighborhood watch schemes have been in place since January 2000. The Panels are groups of local people who work with police and the community to prevent and reduce crime. The neighborhood watch scheme on the other hand involves neighbors coming together to monitor and protect their immediate surroundings.

Under the property marking scheme, the police mark property using professional marking kits, thereby making it easier to trace stolen property and harder to dispose of it.[18]

Also, public sensitization programmes are undertaken and these include training Crime prevention volunteers, involving the media in prevention strategies, education and dissemination of information.[19]

The programme provides for the appointment of community liaison officers to liaise with the public. These liaison Officers in many cases are officers in charge of police posts who undergo one month of community policing training. They are deployed in communities where they can speak the local languages and they work under the supervision of the district police commanders.[20]

In 2003, the commissioner in charge of Community Affairs I, Asan Kasingye completed an evaluation of the community-policing programme.[21] He found out that although the programme is in place, there has been little impact on the ground. A major stumbling block has been the public’s suspicion of the police, which prevents cooperation. The commissioner identifies other factors, which have contributed to the failure of the programme, and these include poor conceptualization, design and management of the programme, absence of understanding among the police, a lack of training across all ranks, poor recruitment, low rank of the liaison officers and a lack of effective government support.

Success stories in Uganda
a) The status in selected rural areas
In Uganda, community policing has registered notable success. Baker[22] for instance shows that there has been success in Busaabala fishing village[23]. He notes that more than 40 villagers have been trained by the local Crime prevention Panel as ‘crime preventers’, something that raised awareness of what the law requires and given crime preventers confidence to contact the police for help. Baker also says that Busaabala fishing village LC1 naturally sees itself as principal law enforcers in the village. This has reduced cases of mob justice in the village.

Baker also conducted a study in Fort Portal district and the residents of Mugusu village market (located 9 km south of Fort Portal) told him that since the rebel Allied Democratic Forces crisis 1998-2002, the area is safe, with only minor problems, no cases of mob justice recorded and that the overall prevalence of law and order is attributed to the villagers’ close knowledge of one another.

b) Urban areas
Again, Baker examined LC1s in the high density areas of Kampala, namely, Luziga zone and the adjoining Mbiro zone. In the former, it is contended that despite its heterogeneity, it has grown much safer over the past few years as ‘pick pocketing’ by street children has been largely eradicated. All credit is given to the work of LC1 executive, which, in a bid to tackle crime, mounted a patrol and arrested pickpockets and the like characters and took them either to LC1 Court or Police. It is also reported that there is a good relationship with the police as they are cooperative.

In Mbiro Zone, residents reported that law and order had changed dramatically since 1986. That whereas, there was a high crime rate, inclusive of murder, kidnapping of children, rape, defilement and the illegal possession of weapons, crime has been greatly reduced and this is equally attributed to the work of the LC 1.[24] By the time Baker conducted his research, the residents could not remember the last incident they had witnessed mob justice in the area. The residents said that with police having trained them in community policing, they now feel confident about what their legal powers are. Accordingly, they have sometimes rebuked the police who come to deal with petty cases which should be left to the LC1. By and large, there is a marked improvement in their relationship with the Police.

Community policing and challenges
Effective community policing in Uganda continue to face a lot of impediments. These include, but they are not limited to corruption that has become institutionalized, budgetary constraints[25], lack of cooperation among communities, inadequate trained personnel in the science of community policing and insecurity especially in the North making the area inaccessible by the police due to the LRA insurgency.[26]

It has been argued that one of the greatest challenges to the police service remains the poor human rights track record of the police and the associated legacy of mistrust between the police and the population.[27] Surveys conducted by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics for the National Commission during the Uganda Africa Peer Review Mechanism (UAPRM) process,[28] and the Uganda Police Review Feasibility Study Report 2007,[29] poorly rated the police in protecting citizens’ rights.

Similarly, the UAPRM report (2007) reveals that the police are viewed by the general public as an instrument of coercion, with a high proportion of corrupt officers. In fact, the recent use of the police to crackdown on the demonstrators in a harsh and unwarranted manner has left its image badly damaged in the eyes of the public. The recent Constitutional Court judgment dated 27 May 2008 declaring Section 32(1)[30] of The Police Act as a contravention of section 29(a), (b) and (c)[31] of the Constitution and therefore having no place in a functioning democracy portrays the police being used by the state as an instrument of coercion.[32] In this situation, the government should not expect community-policing programme to succeed before reclaiming the image of the force.

Continued reports of human rights violations, police misconduct and extortion further tarnish the credibility and reputation of the police force.[33] Accordingly, a large section of the public perceive the police as being corrupt, militarized, partisan and a leading violator of people’s rights. It is not surprising that in such circumstances the police will receive the cooperation of the communities in detection and prevention of crime in society. Thus, for community policing to succeed, these must first be revisited and rectified.

Uganda Police Review Feasibility Study Report, 2007, at p.41, sums the challenges as thus:
“The general picture indicated a lack of public trust in the police; constrained and poor management of public order, crime, intelligence as well as an inability to effectively prevent crime. Coupled with the above was a lack of training, poor staffing, poor working environment, concerns by the public that related to long
detention, torture, children in custody, less disciplined force, no clear human resource policy and less interaction between the upper layers with the lower layers of the police”.

What is the way forward then?
As already noted above, the major challenge to community policing is lack of cooperation and mistrust from the citizens. This is because the police are seen as partisan by engaging in regime policing whereby it has been and continue to be used to crackdown on the public. For community policing to succeed there is need for the police to change strategy and instead partner with the people if communities are to help it detect and prevent crime in this country. It should start by respecting human rights because by the very nature of their functions, the police are constitutionally entrusted with the security of the people and their property. This cannot be achieved with disrespect for human rights. There is also need to restructure the police right from top officers to those at the grassroots and ensure the principles of community policing are inculcated in all the officers through proper training. Of course, the government needs to adequately facilitate the police if they are to effectively execute their functions. The government needs to increase the salaries of police officers as one way of discouraging them from taking bribes and neglect of duty. Lastly, the police should desist from corruption, lest their efforts in fighting crime be compromised through bribes.

Conclusion
Notwithstanding challenges, community policing remains the most effective way of detecting and preventing crime in Uganda. This is premised on the fact that communities themselves know better the circumstances leading to commission of crimes. No doubt therefore that with a strong partnership with the police, more efficient strategies for dealing with criminals will be developed. Moreover the traditional reactive method of policing has become archaic and a proactive approach needs to be adopted. I humbly appreciate the initiatives being taken by the Police High Command to see this programme succeed.
REFERENCES

1) Bruce Baker, Popular Justice and Policing from bush war to democracy: Uganda 1981-2004. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 32, (2004), 333-348. Accessed from: http://www.ssrnetwork.net/uploaded_files/3603.pdf on 06.03.2009”
2) Elijah Dickens Mushemeza, Policing in Post-Conflict Environment: Implications for Police Reform in Uganda. Journal of Security Sector Management (Volume 6 Number 3 –November 2008). Centre for Security Sector Management (CSSM).
3) HURINET: Report of the National Training Workshop for Police-Civilian Oversight and Accountability held at Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel- Entebbe (16th-18th June 2008).
4) Kasingye (undated) Implementing Community Policing: Uganda’s Experience. Accessed from: www.ugandapolice.go.ug/IMPLEMENTING%20COMMUNITY%20POLICING.pdf.
5) Monograph of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (1994). Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action.
6) SAFERWORLD, Implementing Community-based policing in Kenya (February 2008)
7) The police, The people, The politics: Police Accountability in Uganda, A publication of Commonwealth human rights Initiative (2006).
8) UAPRM; 2007, The Uganda Country Self-Assessment Report and Programme of Action
9) Uganda Country Report on the Review of the Uganda Police Force Budget and its effect on crime management (2006). Published by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
10) Uganda Police Force (2005): Community Policing and Crime prevention Training Manual for Police Trainers and Community Liaison Officers, Community Affairs Department, Uganda.
11) Uganda Police Review Feasibility Study Report, 2007
Legislation referred to:
12) The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended in 2005)
13) The Police Act, Cap.303
14) The Independent, Issue 015, 27-3 July 2008, p.11
15) UN Handbook on Planning and Action for Crime Prevention in Southern Africa and the Caribbean Regions (2008) (Criminal Justice Handbook Series)


[1] SAFERWORLD, Implementing Community-based policing in Kenya (February 2008)
[2] Elijah Dickens Mushemeza, Policing in Post-Conflict Environment: Implications for Police Reform in
Uganda. Journal of Security Sector Management (Volume 6 Number 3 –November 2008). Centre for Security Sector Management (CSSM).
[3] Ibid
[4] In strongest terms, the UN Handbook on Planning and Action for Crime Prevention in Southern Africa and the Caribbean Regions (2008) (Criminal Justice Handbook Series), emphasizes that crime cannot be reduced by overstretched personnel. It calls for involving non-governmental and private organizations as well as making the communities feel included as the most effective way of crime detection and prevention in the world.
[5] This is provided for under clause (d) of Article 212. This provision is buttressed by s.4 of the Police Act cap. 303, which elaborates on the functions of the police force being inter alia, to prevent and detect crime in society.
[6] The Independent, Issue 015, 27-3 July 2008, p.11. Also see Mushemeza (supra note 2) at p.13 who states that management and executive levels of the police organization appreciate philosophy of community policing as a proactive approach (as opposed to the traditional reactive approach to policing).

[7] Kasingye, A., “Implementing Community Policing: Uganda’s Experience” A paper presented at the Police Executive Symposium 2003. Quoted in Mushemeza (supra) and in “The Police, the people, and the politics"(infra).

[8] Mushemeza (supra) Details can also be found in Daily Monitor, 8 August 2008
[9] The funds are also earmarked to construct four police headquarters and barracks in the districts of Moroto,
Kotido, Abim and Kaabong.

[10] The police, The people, The politics: Police Accountability in Uganda, A publication of Commonwealth human rights Initiative (2006). Reference, made to: Uganda Police Force (2005): Community Policing and Crime prevention Training Manual for Police Trainers and Community Liaison Officers, Community Affairs Department, Uganda.
[11] HURINET: Report of the National Training Workshop for Police-Civilian Oversight and Accountability held at Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel- Entebbe (16th-18th June 2008). Community policing has also been defined by SAFERWORLD as both a philosophy (a way of thinking) and an organisational strategy that allows the police and the community to work together in new ways to solve problems of crime, disorder and safety issues to improve the quality of life for everyone in that community.

[12] The UN takes the same view in its Handbook on guidelines for crime prevention (2008). The UN asserts that the origins of community policing are also traceable from the recognition that repression and enforcement are not the most effective ways to prevent crime and reduce victimization.
[13] The UN Hand book (2008) on crime prevention further emphasizes the advantage of community policing by tracing its origins to the realization that the police cannot prevent crime or deal with the problems that cause it on their own and out of a greater democratization of society and a realization that the job of the police is to provide a service to all members of society—not just the powerful and influential.

[14] note 2 supra
[15] Article 212 (b). The UN handbook on Crime prevention (2008) (supra) reasserts democratic principles in executing the work of the police.
[16] Monograph of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (1994). Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action. It is emphasized therein that mobilizing the community and building confidence through cooperation are the core principles underpinning community policing if it is to achieve the ultimate goal of detecting and preventing crime in the area wherever it is launched as one way fighting the disorder.


[17] Mushemeza, supra, note 2. Bruce Baker in his article entitled “Popular Justice and Policing from bush war to democracy: Uganda 1981-2004” International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 32, (2004), 333-348. Accessed from: http://www.ssrnetwork.net/uploaded_files/3603.pdf on 06.03.2009”, asserts that efforts to establish community policing date back to NRA/NRM bush war where the resistance councils (now local councils) where used in the captured areas to maintain law and order by identifying any form of aggression within their respective areas of jurisdiction as well as handling disputes. To Baker, this was done with a view to avoid a power vacuum in those areas, especially central Buganda as was in Luweero triangle. Of course NRA fighters knew that without such structures being put in place, there would be possibilities of opposition, ultimately commission of crimes, yet they did not want to disorganize the communities which they claimed were fighting to liberate. It is my considered opinion that these fighters had a good strategy and thus associate myself with Bruce Baker.
[18] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (supra).
[19] Ibid
[20] Mushemeza (supra)
[21] Kasingye (undated) Implementing Community Policing: Uganda’s Experience. Accessed from: www.ugandapolice.go.ug/IMPLEMENTING%20COMMUNITY%20POLICING.pdf.

[22] Supra
[23] This is a fishing village along Lake Victoria.
[24] In Mbiro zone, one of the Councilors said that as the LC1 they had power as (quoting his words) ‘people together we fight crime.’
[25] Uganda Country Report on the Review of the Uganda Police Force Budget and its effect on crime management (2006). Published by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. It is stated that due to budgetary cuts, the police force has not been able to finance its policing programmes.
[26] The UN Hand book(2008) (supra) puts it this way “crime will not be reduced by corrupt, inefficient, violent, ineffective, underpaid, low-morale police forces”
[27] The police, the people, the politics: Police accountability in Uganda, Published by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (2008). Herein the Commissioner of Police in Charge Community Affairs, Asan Kasingye, is quoted having conceded that his evaluation of the community policing programme has had little impact on the ground-the major stumbling block being public’s suspicion of the Police, thereby preventing cooperation between the two.
[28] UAPRM; 2007, The Uganda Country Self-Assessment Report and Programme of Action
[29] Ugandan Police, Uganda Police Review Feasibility Study Report, 2007
[30] The section states that “In case of any gathering of more than 25 people, the inspector general of police has to be informed seven days in advance to decide whether he grants permission or not”.
[31] The section grants the right to assemble or demonstrate under the protection of police.
[32] Muwanga Kivumbi vs Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2005) [2008] UGCC 4 (27 May 2008)

[33] Mushemeza (supra).